PDA

View Full Version : Charging skirmishers



Makaber
15-08-2005, 19:15
T10 is a sly and cunning opponent, with a very good grasp of game mechanics. A bit too good for his own good, perhaps. Recently, I've been on the recieving end of a few charges I'm a bit sceptical to. It's actually a variation of the insane bootlegger U-turn knight charge that was fiercely debated on back at Portent, for those who remember that.

Anyways, the premise: When charging, you are permitted one wheel to line up the charge. You can't use this wheel and the charge movement to get into a charge direction opposite of the one you started with, and the aim is always to get as many guys into melee as possible. This works very well with ranked regiments.

However, it gets a bit tricky against units with no discernable front to speak of (ie. skirmishes). So, T10 has used this lack of spesification in the rules to line up his charges at slightly different angles than what would seem natural. I've made some (spiffy) illustrations.

Charge 1 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v247/makaber/charge1.jpg) is the shortest possible route, however it's aimed towards the far end of the regiment, which seems a little odd. Charge 2 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v247/makaber/charge2.jpg) is how I assume most would solve it, heading straight for the centre of the regiment. I have no problem with neither of these.

However, Charge 3 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v247/makaber/charge3.jpg) is how T10 would approach it: With a sold grasp of rules, a near-german efficiency, and rutheless mercilessness!!! Notice how he "overwheels" to line up the charge. It's technically legal, since he's allowed one wheel, but it's aimed at an artificially far end of the herd, so if he breaks his first target (very likely), he can overrun into the chariot. Since the principles are the same no matter how stretched the herd is, it can get a lot more extreme than the examples given in a game situation.

Is there anything in the rules against this? It's beginning to get a little old.

Sylass
15-08-2005, 19:52
I don't have my rulebook in reach (*gasp* :eek:), but I seem to remember that you have to move in contact with the closest visible model when charging a unit of skirmishers. I guess that would help a bit already?


Might be completely wrong, but the voices kept telling me to post this.

Selsaral
15-08-2005, 19:53
Yes I remember this issue and a few threads about it.

To get things started, I'll bring up the fact that you can only wheel when charging in order to bring more models into combat. If the wheel doesn't do that, then you cannot wheel.

Makaber
15-08-2005, 20:00
But what if the knights were a little further to the left, so that they had to wheel in order to reach the herd anyways? On second though, that would make for a much better example.

Selsaral
15-08-2005, 20:03
But what if the knights were a little further to the left, so that they had to wheel in order to reach the herd anyways? On second though, that would make for a much better example.

Then they would be allowed to wheel, but how much? According to the rules, you cannot wheel unless you are bringing more models into combat. Since NO amount of wheeling past what it takes to make minute contact with a single best herd guy will bring more models into combat, I don't see how a larger wheel can be legal.

Izram
15-08-2005, 20:03
Ah yes, I remember this.

There is no charge the closest visable skirmisher rule, just stop when you hit one and the rest will line up.

The debate was (is) whether you can wheel once as long as you got the most models in as possible, even when unneccasary.

I believe it was a pretty close 50-50 split of people who thought you may wheel once during your charge as long as you got as many chargers in contact and people who thought you may wheel once in order to get as many chargers in contact.

I personally think that the latter is true (although it is based on personal belief on realism instead of rules, because im pretty sure there was just a stand still on the poorly/vaguely written passage).

Selsaral
15-08-2005, 20:04
I don't have my rulebook in reach (*gasp* :eek:), but I seem to remember that you have to move in contact with the closest visible model when charging a unit of skirmishers. I guess that would help a bit already?


Might be completely wrong, but the voices kept telling me to post this.

LOL I feel equally worthless, as I am without a rulebook, but almost positive this is a hard and fast rule that will greatly clarify matters as soon as someone can quote it.

Cheesejoff
15-08-2005, 20:17
IIRC you just wheel so that the Knights are facing the closest skirmisher, then charge straight in that direction. Once you hit one you stop and let the skirmishers line up.

Probably wrong though.

PelsBoble
15-08-2005, 21:03
BRB page 116:

If the skirmishers are charged, the enemy is brought into base contact with the closest skirmisher(within LoS ofc) and then the enemy unit is halted.

Since the skirmishers rank up in a line when the enemy is halted i dont see the reason why you should need to wheel in this example. I believe from the rules that example 1 is the correct way. As the knights would get maximum frontage since the skirmishers form up after the knights halt at the first skirmisher.

Major Defense
15-08-2005, 21:18
There is no charge the closest visable skirmisher rule, just stop when you hit one and the rest will line up.

Lies.

"If the skirmishers are charged, the enemy is brought into base contact with the closest skirmisher and then the emeny unit is haldted." - page 116

'Charge 1' is the correct charge to make. Charges 2 and 3 ignore the sentence above and are therefore illegal charges. It is the personal responsibility of the knights player to move into a better position in his previous turn to take better advantage of a charge like #3, maybe even offering a charge to the skirmishers to trick them into getting into position. Just the same, it is the personal responsibility of the skirmishers/chariot player to avoid moving into that sort of position. I don't think that Makaber made that mistake so he shouldn't have to pay the penalty of having his units overrun into.

Izram
15-08-2005, 21:33
Poorly worded on my part, guess i should have Italicezed the "visable" part as you have overlooked it. The closest skirmisher is not always the closest visable.

Festus
15-08-2005, 21:47
Hi

Again.. ;)

Well: the rules tell you to contact the closest skirmisher.
There can be no debate or argument here.

But the rules allow you to wheel during a charge.

The topical question is: Are you allowed to unnecessarily wheel - or not?

I am strongly in favour of the tactical (unnecessary) wheel, while others on this board are not.

The problem is, that the part on required and deliberate wheels during a charge is open to interpretation itself.

So the best answer is: Whatever floats your boat and seems *realistic* enough to be believable.

Greetings
Festus

Izram
15-08-2005, 22:52
So, if the closest skirmisher could not be reached, you cant charge?
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/Izram/SkirmisherCharge.jpg
They could or could not charge them? They can't legally make it to the closest skirmisher.

What if the closest skirmisher is positioned so the charger has to wheel to hit it? Who says you can/cannot 'over wheel' to get the chariot in.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/Izram/SkirmisherCharge2.jpg

I don't see why someone couldn't do 'uneccasary wheels', they can manouver how they want if they must but cannot go anywhere but straight foward, even if the bulk of the unit is somewhere else?

This increased restriction on movement gives skirmishers a further (IMO unfair) advantage. Why would a loose group of light fighters force a block's movement direction? Influence the movement descisions, yes. Force them straight foward? I dont think so.

Makaber
15-08-2005, 23:05
This increased restriction on movement gives skirmishers a further (IMO unfair) advantage. Why would a loose group of light fighters force a block's movement direction? Influence the movement descisions, yes. Force them straight foward? I dont think so.

I beg to differ. Unlimited maneouvering during the charge allows the attacker to dictate the "direction" of the combat (in the case of skirmishers). This is opposed to ranked units, where the charged regiment can be pre-positioned in a way that could lead the attacking regiment into a disadvatageous position. This is a staple of warhammer tactickery that skirmishers cannot do (if the charger can wheel to direct his charge). It really hurts armies where the bread and butter units are skirmishers (ie. beastmen).

Lordmonkey
15-08-2005, 23:56
I would have thought that the closest VIABLE skirmisher would be the target for the charge, rather than just the closest skirmisher in the unit. I know that isnt the law & letter, but that seems most realistic and sensible to me.

Major Defense
16-08-2005, 00:46
The problem is, that the part on required and deliberate wheels during a charge is open to interpretation itself.

You keep saying that but it still isn't true. :eyebrows:

Let's just refer everyone back to the original thread of this debate.
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3048&page=1&pp=10
I, again, rest my case.

Major Defense
16-08-2005, 02:24
So, if the closest skirmisher could not be reached, you cant charge?
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/Izram/SkirmisherCharge.jpg

Q. Situation: Unit A wants to charge unit B, however there is a patch
of difficult ground in the way. If Unit A goes through the difficult
ground it will fail the charge. If unit A wheels a bit it will be able
to contact the enemy unit, but the wheel will bring fewer charging
models into contact with the enemy than if Unit A was able to complete
the charge by moving straight ahead. Can unit A wheel around the
difficult terrain to make the charge in this situation?

A. Yes. As outlined in the Charging rules, the first rule of charging is
to bring as many models from the charging unit into combat as possible.
As "fewer" is greater than "zero", Unit A must perform the wheel and
complete the charge.
S. Rulebook page 52 / Direwolf FAQ Council Interpretation





I refuse to connect the dots here so I will let you to figure out in your own time that the ranked unit charges the skirmishers in front of it.

P.S. - The closest skirmisher in your example is clearly further than an inch from his nearest friend. Your hypothetical opponent is cheating!

Yanos
16-08-2005, 07:57
Coming back to the issue at hand, I'd be in favour of allowing Charge 3 from the original debate.

Why :eyebrows: ? Because the knight player should be able to dictate the direction of his charge when charging Skirmishers, it's the nature of the (skirmishing) unit. Loose formations of troops should not be able to pull an opponent's frontage where it doesn't want to go on the charge. For those that argue that this makes life difficult for Beastmen players, they have the extra maneuverability to move themselves so that the enemy cannot set themselves up for such charges: in this case, shifting the Beastherd to their left to prevent the pursuit/overrun going into the chariot. They also have the option of ranked-up units which can be positioned to draw frontal charges away from other troops.

Those that argue that the chariot is then a viable target should berate the Beast player for putting it in range of the knights :D !

Atrahasis
16-08-2005, 08:16
The letter of the rules only allows wheels that increase the number of models reaching combat. So called "tactical" wheeling is outlawed by the rules.

Festus
16-08-2005, 08:24
You keep on saying that, like MD ;)

As I can only add, this is still open to debate.

See the link in MD's post...

Greetings
Festus

Atrahasis
16-08-2005, 08:25
You keep on saying that, like MD ;)

As I can only add, this is still open to debate.

See the link in MD's post...

Greetings
Festus

I remember the original discussion. The rules give no permission for any whell except one that increases the number of charging models that reach combat. If you can quote a rule that gives that permission, then the debate is over. If you can't, the debate is over.

Yanos
16-08-2005, 08:27
Fair enough, if that is the letter of the rules then so be it. But is there anyone else who agrees with me that that is rather a poor showing :( ? It suggests that all commanders, when faced with a skirmishing unit to charge, will all career directly forwards with no thought to the tactical merits of going just a little bit to the right as well :wtf: .

Yes I know this is the Rules forum, and I know Warhammer rules and reality should not be mixed as it leads to all sorts of problems. In the end it just comes down to whether you'll stick to the letter of the rules in order to win a combat (or a game), or whether you'll allow your opponent the same amount of license you might expect to enjoy yourself.

Fair enough, Charge 3 is illegal, but it's a shameful triumph for rules lawyering that it's so :rolleyes: .

T10
16-08-2005, 08:40
Having blamed the Machine for coming up with the "lone gunman deployment" scheme, I guess I can take (local) credit for the U-turn charge. :-)

Makaber's charge 3 captures the essence of what ovewheeling is designed to achieve, but does break with the requirement to charge the closest skrimishing model.

A more blatant example of overwheeling would be to move towards the closest skirmisher and then do an extreeme wheel to dictate the battle-line.

-T10

PelsBoble
16-08-2005, 09:37
Ok but what if the skirmisher that is closest is at an angle? How will my example in the attachment work? Will the second charge make the knights wheel or will the just move straight forward and then halt making the skirmishers form up?

Yanos
16-08-2005, 09:50
Fair enough. A ranked unit charging skirmishers doesn't align to the first model it touches, the skirmishers align to the front of the chargers. So in your case, going by the "charge the nearest visible skirmisher" rule, the unit would in both cases remain on its previous facing, and the skirmishers would form up in front of it. The only difference would be that in the second case, the charging unit would not advance as far before halting for combat.

The Errata here (http://uk.games-workshop.com/chronicles/errata/assets/warhammer-rulebook.pdf) give a good example of this, third page :) .

T10
16-08-2005, 10:55
Ok but what if the skirmisher that is closest is at an angle? How will my example in the attachment work? Will the second charge make the knights wheel or will the just move straight forward and then halt making the skirmishers form up?

The skirmishers line up against the knights.

-T10

Major Defense
16-08-2005, 11:30
It suggests that all commanders, when faced with a skirmishing unit to charge, will all career directly forwards with no thought to the tactical merits of going just a little bit to the right as well

As I keep pointing out, the tactical merit is earned in positioning on the previous turn's Remaining Moves phase. You've shown this merit before when you undoubtedly set one unit to charge an enemy being baited by another unit. "...the troops are galloping once the charge has begun and are unable to execute delicate manoeuvres even if they were able to hear the orders fo their leaders above the din."



I remember the original discussion. The rules give no permission for any whell except one that increases the number of charging models that reach combat. If you can quote a rule that gives that permission, then the debate is over. If you can't, the debate is over.

I'll help you out with that. The rule to quote is on page 52...

"...can..."

See!? That's it!! If you can just read between the lines and interpret the word "can" outside of the context of the paragraph that it is in, then you "can" wheel as much as you want - and it is newly apparent you can wheel to whatever direction you want as long as you do the fair and just thing of ignoring both the spirit and the letter of the rules. Buckfutter!!



the knight player should be able to dictate the direction of his charge when charging Skirmishers, it's the nature of the (skirmishing) unit. Loose formations of troops should not be able to pull an opponent's frontage where it doesn't want to go on the charge.

So even though charging units do NOT get to dictate the direction of their charge against ranked units, you think they should be able to do so against skirmishers?? Care to realistically explain why you feel this way other than to cryptically say "It's the nature"? That loose formation is NOT pulling anybody's frontage anywhere. They just moved to a position on the field that the opponent is having trouble eeking an otherwise unrealistic advantage out of. I really can't see your point as anything other than, "I don't want to have to plan ahead and work so hard to get a good charge so I should be able to interpret the rules to my own advantage and I don't play many skirmishing units anyway so I can treat anyone else's description of these rules as somehow unfair to me".

I'm not trying to be a jerk (that's not to say that I am not in fact a jerk) but you "pro-uberwheel" people really have to come up with a better argument than describing how you feel about it. I get some really good advice on this forum and in most situations people stick to the facts. I'm sure that many of us would like to rely on this forum for honest, fair, substantiated help on how to interpret the rules. I'd hate to see even one movement thread go off in some wholly incorrect direction because just like a meta-virus it will spawn another and another until you have two schools of thought on an otherwise simple rule: charges are not performed "freely" like remaining moves. The freedom is (usually) in declaring charges or not declaring charges. You have to charge a target and not just at a direction you like and in charging that target the rules are pretty clear on where you are to charge. Wheeling beyond that is...well, beyond me.

Yanos
16-08-2005, 12:01
Thanks, but I have just as many skirmishers as the next army (unless it happens to be Beastmen or WElves), in the form of Shades, Harpies and Manflayers. Sorry but the sweeping statements and angry ramblings do nothing to help your efforts not to come across as a jerk :eyebrows: .

While I'll admit I often can't predict the position of Skirmishing enemies two turns ahead in order to set up my charges, that doesn't mean to say I disagree with you. I'd just like to think that most opponents would have no great problems with the situation as seen in Charge 3, unless they wish to cleave right to the letter of the rules. It now of course becomes difficult to be objective about the issue as we've all dissected it ;) , but while I wouldn't particularly like it, I'd allow that charge if it came at me. I'd also probably flee with the Skirmishers if the distance was in my favour, but that's another story :D !

Selsaral
16-08-2005, 12:53
I'd just like to think that most opponents would have no great problems with the situation as seen in Charge 3, unless they wish to cleave right to the letter of the rules.

Well I'd like to think most opponents would play by the rules, and not by what they 'think' is right. That only leads to endless arguments. As far as I can tell, the rules are quiet clear in this matter and I'd scream bloody murder if an opponent of mine tried Charge 3. It's clearly illegal.

Yanos
16-08-2005, 13:17
Fair dos. It is illegal, so can't say fairer than that really.

T10
16-08-2005, 13:44
So even though charging units do NOT get to dictate the direction of their charge against ranked units, you think they should be able to do so against skirmishers??

They would have to. The skirmishing unit does not have a defined front or flank along which to draw the battle-line.

-T10

Selsaral
16-08-2005, 15:01
They would have to. The skirmishing unit does not have a defined front or flank along which to draw the battle-line.

-T10

Yes they do, they specifically have a rule for this:

BRB page 116:

If the skirmishers are charged, the enemy is brought into base contact with the closest skirmisher(within LoS ofc) and then the enemy unit is halted.

Naghaz
16-08-2005, 15:11
Im sorry this is just nuts. Of course you cannot wheel to a better position why would you be allowed to? The rules are clear and have been outlined by others so I wont rehash. Suffice to say Charge 1 in the example is the way it should be handled.

"If the skirmishers are charged, the enemy is brought into base contact with the closest skirmisher(within LoS ofc) and then the enemy unit is halted."

Exactly! What this "uber wheel" is all about I don't know, but what I do know is its clearly against the spirit of the game. I'm really glad I missed the first debate, as I find it crazy enough this time around, I can't imagine such an obvious break in the rules has come up more than once.

Major Defense
16-08-2005, 23:25
Thanks for not letting me be the only incredulous rule-abiding person here, Naghaz. The previous debate was equally as mindless. As in that thread, I will summarize here that if you are playing with an experienced opponent (shame on you for twisting this scam on a novice) then I wish you luck in convincing them to abandon the written rules to allow such charges as some sort of "house rule" for the two of you alone.

Just please do me the courteousy of NOT arguing such obvious separations from the actual rules as if they are legitimate. It confuses the newbies! For crying out loud, it says, "If the skirmishers are charged, the enemy is brought into base contact with the closest skirmisher and then the emeny unit is haldted." Izram's example was just an attempt to reason that if you can find a situation where the rule doesn't make sense then you can ignore it in situations where it does make sense. In those odd occasions it is best to do what is reasonable and charging in a direction instead of at a unit is just not reasonable.



http://home.comcast.net/~majordefense/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

Makaber
17-08-2005, 01:35
I am not a novice, thankyouverymuch.

And I can see both sides of the argument. I think one of the problems is how the line "If the skirmishers are charged, the enemy is brought into base contact with the closest skirmisher and then the emeny unit is haldted." refers mostly to how the charge is handled once the chargers actually hit the skirmishers, and not so much as to how they're supposed to actually approach them. After all, "the closest" in this example can be taken into account as referring to the closest model to the chargers after the chargers actually start moving in a straight line to make contact. Which is after any wheeling (which, as it can also be taken into account for, they are allowed to by the rules) during the charge.

But yes, I'm quite certain the most logical way (and also the way it's intended) is to move the charging unit the shortest possible way towards the nearest visible model.

And I don't really think there's any need for further discussion ... Let's face it, you're not going to reach an agreement, and you're just repeating old arguments.

Oh, and for the charge in question: It didn't make any difference. I still won. Just to give you peace of mind.

T10
17-08-2005, 07:07
I'll agree that that over-wheeling is a questionable tactic on par with dictating the charge by placing the closest model in an awkward position. Each is a counter for the other.

Makaber:
I suggest a house rule to the effect of your charge 2 illustration, targeting the main body of the unit. It makes more sense.

-T10

Ozzy
21-08-2005, 14:39
T10 is a sly and cunning opponent, with a very good grasp of game mechanics. A bit too good for his own good, perhaps. Recently, I've been on the recieving end of a few charges I'm a bit sceptical to. It's actually a variation of the insane bootlegger U-turn knight charge that was fiercely debated on back at Portent, for those who remember that.

Anyways, the premise: When charging, you are permitted one wheel to line up the charge. You can't use this wheel and the charge movement to get into a charge direction opposite of the one you started with, and the aim is always to get as many guys into melee as possible. This works very well with ranked regiments.


Could somebody please direct me to any info on the u-turn charge... Is it disallowed by the rules or in any faqs or is it just seen as too cheesy. Are you allowed to only wheel a certain amount (say 90 degrees) during the charge? If you can only manage to get your charge into the front of a unit but you started off in the flank is that an illegal charge?

Any help would be appreciated...

Festus
21-08-2005, 16:08
Hi

If you can only manage to get your charge into the front of a unit but you started off in the flank is that an illegal charge?
This is a non-charge... :)

You cannot end up in a different unit side than the one you started your charge in.

If you start your charge in the front, you have to contact the front, (barring special rules like detachments...) and so on.

Greetings
Festus

Major Defense
22-08-2005, 22:48
To answer the other part of your post...



Could somebody please direct me to any info on the u-turn charge... Is it disallowed by the rules or in any faqs or is it just seen as too cheesy. Are you allowed to only wheel a certain amount (say 90 degrees) during the charge?

There is no FAQ specifying that you can't "over wheel" because most people understood the rules for what they are. So yes, it is just seen as too cheesy. There is no limitation to the number of degrees you can wheel. However, you may do so only for the purpose of bringing more charging models into contact. The "u-turn" wheel, or "uber-wheel" as I like to call it, is the lazy man's answer to a disadvantageous charge.

Atrahasis
27-08-2005, 16:53
You contradict yourself:

First you say there is no limit to the number of degrees one can wheel,


So yes, it is just seen as too cheesy. There is no limitation to the number of degrees you can wheel.

... and then state that there is a limit,


However, you may do so only for the purpose of bringing more charging models into contact.


The "u-turn" wheel, or "uber-wheel" as I like to call it, is the lazy man's answer to a disadvantageous charge.

And is illegal, as no amount of excessive wheeling will bring more charging models into contact with enemy.

T10
27-08-2005, 22:20
Over-wheeling is required in many circumstances where you want to be a good sport or simply make a charge that doesn't look completely wrong.

An extreme, yet common, example:

A single model declares a charge against a ranked regiment. The regiment is not directly in front of the charging model, so it will have to wheel/pivot in order to reach it.

Now, the sporting thing to do is to move the charging model into the middle of the target unit and bring it into contact with as many enemy models as possible.

Let us assume that over-wheeling isn't allowed. In this case the charging model must engage the target unit at the most extreme right or left - in fact it would have to engage the target unit corner-to-corner!

That would strike me as a bit odd.

-T10

Lord_Byron
28-08-2005, 02:18
I don't follow the logic of the last post. If this single model in fact wheeled to charge the opponent in a manner to make contact with the most amount of enemy models, then charging into corner to corner contact in one far end of the target unit would in fact be be under-or over-wheeling. Gracious overwheeling has nothing to do with it. In my opinion the argument I have seen supporting the over-wheel is the same state of mind which would condone clipping. Clipping is regarded as sneaky and underhanded, and is in fact the very reason for the creation of the 'you must charge in a manner to make contact with the most amount of enemy models' rule.

The single model might end up charging the far right or left side of the enemy unit because it is closer if and only if charging the center of the unit would not put it into contact with any more models than charging the far right or left side.

The moral question of over-wheeling when charging skirmishers should never have come up, because the skirmishers automatically move up to engage the charging unit, thus reducing the chargers complicity in the charge to moving in as straight a manner as possible to contact the closet enemy skirmisher. You don't charge diagonally, you don't charge around corners, and you don't overwheel or underwheel to put the precise model you want into contact with specific targets or place your unit in an advantageous post-combat position. You wheel to face the target if you have to, then charge straight towards the enemy and engage.

-Obviate Obtundity-

Izram
28-08-2005, 03:31
You don't have to contact the most enemy models; thats the point.

You maximize chargers.

Festus
28-08-2005, 08:33
Hi

You don't charge diagonally, you don't charge around corners, and you don't overwheel or underwheel to put the precise model you want into contact with specific targets or place your unit in an advantageous post-combat position. You wheel to face the target if you have to, then charge straight towards the enemy and engage.
Well, unfortunately, you do and have to:

You charge round corners or boulders in the way, you can easily under-wheel to keep your character in contact and another ones out of combat, as long as you maximise your attackers,
and you better choose the most advantageous positin for your charge to happen.

So all of those are legal and intended by the rules.

Why should it be something different with charging skirmishers?

Asks
Festus

Atrahasis
28-08-2005, 09:34
Over-wheeling is required in many circumstances where you want to be a good sport or simply make a charge that doesn't look completely wrong.

An extreme, yet common, example:

A single model declares a charge against a ranked regiment.

Irrelevant, as single models do not wheel. The discussion is about wheeling.

T10
29-08-2005, 07:15
Irrelevant, as single models do not wheel. The discussion is about wheeling.

I'm speechless.

-T10

T10
29-08-2005, 07:35
I don't follow the logic of the last post. (...)


Assess it again from the point of view that you have to bring as many of your own unit into combat with the enemy, but you are under no obligation to include the maximum number of his.

A Bretonnian lance formation (three wide) can engage up to five Orcs but can get away with engaging three.

The thing is that even with a ranked regiment charging another ranked regiment off to the right (or left) of it's direct forward path would always engage the enemy with its leftmost (or rightmost) model in corner-to-corner contact with the enemy unit.

-T10

Major Defense
29-08-2005, 11:55
You contradict yourselfNo, I don't, but I'm not here to educate people on grammar and sentence structure so read it again.


Now, the sporting thing to do is to move the charging model into the middle of the target unit and bring it into contact with as many enemy models as possible.

Let us assume that over-wheeling isn't allowed. In this case the charging model must engage the target unit at the most extreme right or left - in fact it would have to engage the target unit corner-to-corner!

That would strike me as a bit odd.

Then be struck! The angle of the charge dictates the position of the melee. "Corner-to-corner" is just another attempt at finding an extreme example that doesn't seem right in order to throw out the whole rule. We've been there and done that. The single charging model would in fact face up to the nearest model on the side that he charged from.


You don't have to contact the most enemy models; thats the point.

You maximize chargers.

Aha! Genius! Why not find an obscure wording or cook up a strange situation to prove your point? Because the rules already support it in word and spirit. This thread should end at that point but somehow I know it will keep going.


Assess it again from the point of view that you have to bring as many of your own unit into combat with the enemy, but you are under no obligation to include the maximum number of his.


Um...that's what we've been doing all along.



A Bretonnian lance formation (three wide) can engage up to five Orcs but can get away with engaging three.

There is no "getting away with" because nobody chooses how they are going to move their chargers. Not ever. Even after this thread is beat in to irrelevance.

Festus
29-08-2005, 12:20
I am sorry, but this is nonsense, complete and utter nonsense!


... nobody chooses how they are going to move their chargers. Not ever.
Well, exactly everybody chooses how to move their chargers.
And everybody chooses how much to wheel (if at all).
The only relevant thing to remember is that you mustn't wheel to bring less attackers into combat then you can with a straight move.



Assess it again from the point of view that you have to bring as many of your own unit into combat with the enemy, but you are under no obligation to include the maximum number of his.

Um...that's what we've been doing all along.
Better redifine *we* here.
Under the current rules noone forces you to maximize defenders, and I certainly won't.


The angle of the charge dictates the position of the melee. "Corner-to-corner" is just another attempt at finding an extreme example that doesn't seem right in order to throw out the whole rule.
No, the angle of the charge does nothing but determine the *minimum* number of attacking models that have to be brought into contact.
And - really - it doesn't even do this in all cases:
If you have a very tight charge without any spiffy movement to spare on unneccessary wheels and one or more inhibiting terrain pieces, you can even end up with less models in contact than the angle at first suggests.


The single charging model would in fact face up to the nearest model on the side that he charged from.
How in all the world do you come to that conclusion?
The single model can charge and contact any model in any position at the near side of the unit he charges (exception: if he charges skirmishers, he must indeed charge the nearest model).
There is no obligation to choose the shortest possible route in the charge.

It is somehow embarrassing to see how you apply other rules not connected with the topic as being relevant, when they are indeed not. :(


Festus

T10
29-08-2005, 12:54
Then be struck! The angle of the charge dictates the position of the melee. "Corner-to-corner" is just another attempt at finding an extreme example that doesn't seem right in order to throw out the whole rule. We've been there and done that. The single charging model would in fact face up to the nearest model on the side that he charged from.


Hey, if a ruleinterpretation cannot stand up to simple boundary testing, then there is something wrong with it.

Your interpretation of the rules for charging is that the charging unit must conform exactly to the minimum requirement.

My interpretation of those rules are that the charging unit has the freedom to operate within the scope allowed within the minimum and maximum requirement.

-T10

(A: this post contains gratuitous mis-spellings. Enjoy!)

Atrahasis
29-08-2005, 17:03
No, I don't, but I'm not here to educate people on grammar and sentence structure so read it again.


There is no limitation to the number of degrees you can wheel. However, you may do so only for the purpose of bringing more charging models into contact.

The above two sentences contradict each other. You say there is no limitation on the amount that can be wheeled, and then state that to wheel further than would bring more chargers into contact is illegal. That is a limitation on the number of degrees one can wheel, and so contradicts the first sentence.

This thread has gone on for many more pages than necessary - can any of those who support the ability to "over-wheel" offer any rules that make their position in any way justifiable?

Festus
29-08-2005, 18:38
Or:
Can any of those who support the inability to *over-wheel* offer any rules that make etc. etc.

You'll get the point....

Atrahasis
29-08-2005, 19:00
Or:
Can any of those who support the inability to *over-wheel* offer any rules that make etc. etc.

You'll get the point....

Don't have the rulebook with me here, but:

Working from the premise that we can only do what the rules give permission for.
The rules state that a unit can (and indeed must) wheel once during the charge in order to bring as many charging models into contact as possible.

No other permission for wheeling during the charge is given, hence the only wheel allowed is one that increases the number of charging models that reach combat.

Festus
29-08-2005, 20:54
Hi

This does not become the *more true*/ *truer* (whatever it is called in English), the more often it is repeated.
Correct me if it is any different in the English version of the BRB, but in the German one those things you combined into one are two distinct sentences:

A unit may wheel once during a charge. Period. It is even obliged to wheel if this can bring more attackers into base contact. Period (again). etc...

The first sentence is all the rule I need...

Greetings
Festus

Major Defense
29-08-2005, 23:44
I am sorry, but this is nonsense, complete and utter nonsense!

I can only assume that you are referring to your own comments because, unlike you, I have been backing my statements up with actual rules. You and your "the world should work how I want" opinions are going nowhere fast and only serving to make others as confused as you already are. If you really lack excitement in life and need to bicker on a forum then I would be happy to insult you in every which way over private messages. Then you can *really* be angry. ;)


The single model can charge and contact any model in any position at the near side of the unit he charges (exception: if he charges skirmishers, he must indeed charge the nearest model).

I would now request an actual rule supporting your opinion. But you're being a big baby about all of this so go ahead and ignore that request and instead you can just prattle on about your opinions.


The first sentence is all the rule I need...

As I have pointed out many times before, rules are whatever you want them to be when you can take what you want to read out of the context of the paragraph that it is in. Take this glutton for punishment right here...


The above two sentences contradict each other. You say there is no limitation on the amount that can be wheeled, and then state that to wheel further than would bring more chargers into contact is illegal. That is a limitation on the number of degrees one can wheel, and so contradicts the first sentence.

For the last time, you are wrong in telling me that I am contradicting myself. You seem to have the ability to copy and paste text but you ignored my request that you read it again. Lets back it up and slow it down for you just one more time...

"There is no limitation to the number of degrees you can wheel. However, you may do so only for the purpose of bringing more charging models into contact."

Sentence one answers a previous question in stating that there is no rule that you cannot wheel past a certain number of degrees in a charge (like 45 degrees or 90 degrees) having nothing at all to do with rules about why you can or cannot wheel during a charge.

Sentence two appends with the word "however" and adds that, while there is no rule about wheeling a certain set number of degrees, there is a rule about wheeling more than nessecary to bring more charging models into contact.

Atrahasis, if you have a loose grasp of the English language then I am sorry for making you look like a fool. However, if you speak fluent English then you are only here in this thread to draw attention away from how much of a fool Festus is making of himself. Way to play under the deuce. :evilgrin:

Atrahasis
30-08-2005, 07:15
Sentence one answers a previous question in stating that there is no rule that you cannot wheel past a certain number of degrees in a charge (like 45 degrees or 90 degrees) having nothing at all to do with rules about why you can or cannot wheel during a charge.

Sentence two appends with the word "however" and adds that, while there is no rule about wheeling a certain set number of degrees, there is a rule about wheeling more than nessecary to bring more charging models into contact.

Sentence two is a limit on the number of degrees that can be wheeled. It's not a set numerical limit, but its a limit nonetheless.

I agree with everything else though. ;)

@Festus : The English rules do not separate the sentences. Your confusion apparently arises from poor translation.

T10
30-08-2005, 07:36
Sentence two is a limit on the number of degrees that can be wheeled. It's not a set numerical limit, but its a limit nonetheless.


It sounds like you are contradicting yourself there.

Major Defense is only pointing out that a wheel can be of any number of degrees (all considerations aside). In addition there is the limit of the unit's movement and the whole overwheel issue.

-T10

T10
30-08-2005, 07:57
This thread has gone on for many more pages than necessary - can any of those who support the ability to "over-wheel" offer any rules that make their position in any way justifiable?

The rules for charging defer to the normal movement rules with certain restrictions:

- The only maneuver that may be performed is the wheel, which may be performed once.
- At the end of the charge the unit must have as many of its own models as possible in base contact with the enemy.

The major difference between me and Major Defense is that he sees an implied where I see implied freedom of movement.

-T10

Atrahasis
30-08-2005, 08:18
It sounds like you are contradicting yourself there.

No, I'm merely pointing out that while not a set limit (ie you cannot wheel more than 90^o), the restriction that you cannot wheel more than is necessary to maximise chargers in contact is a limit on the size of a wheel (and hence a limit on the number of degrees in that wheel).

Major Defernse and I are making the same point, in different ways, and I'm being a pedant. :D


- The only maneuver that may be performed is the wheel, which may be performed once.

The language describing the wheel all points towards it being a minimum wheel to bring as many chargers into contact as possible:

"During a a charge a unit can wheel once. It can, and indeed must, wheel in order to maximise"
"If chargers need to wheel"
"Once a unit has completed any required wheel"

The first quote tells us that we may wheel and when.
The second reinforces this, by telling us the procedure to execute when wheeling, and that it is only executed when a wheel is needed.
The third reinforces it more so, indicating that any wheel performed is one that was required.

Festus
30-08-2005, 08:34
Hi

"During a a charge a unit can wheel once."
It doesn't seem to be a matter of translation here.

Even in the English version (assuming your quote is correct), there are two sentences.

And the first one goes:
During a a charge a unit can wheel once.

This still is all the rules I need. After that it just rambles on when it must charge or when it needs to charge and whatever. But this sentence allows me, you, everybody to wheel during a charge.

There are NO restrictions whatsoever on this sentence. There are just additions.

Point made.
Goodbye
Happy rambling on...

Festus

Atrahasis
30-08-2005, 08:41
During a a charge a unit can wheel once.

There are NO restrictions whatsoever on this sentence. There are just additions.



The second and subsequent sentences qualify the first. The point about maximising chargers has already been made in its own rule further up the page, and so the second sentence would be redundant unless it is meant to qualify the permission given above.

Consider the folowing:

"My car can be driven at up to 140mph. I can, and indeed must, adhere to a speed limit of 30mph when driving in built up areas."

Does the presence of the first sentence mean that I can drive at 140mph anywhere, despite the second sentence?

T10
30-08-2005, 09:07
Actually, a more fitting analogy for your position is:

"My car can go 240 kph. There is a minimum speed limit of 50kph. I must drive at exactly this speed, no more, no less."

My positon is:

"My car can go 240 kph. There is a minimum speed limit of 50kph and a maximum speed limit of 90kph. I must drive at a speed that lies within this limit."

-T10

Festus
30-08-2005, 09:17
Hi

The second and subsequent sentences qualify the first. The point about maximising chargers has already been made in its own rule further up the page, and so the second sentence would be redundant unless it is meant to qualify the permission given above.

Wow, tell me something about linguistics and semantics, will you... :rolleyes:

Your analogy is wrong, I am afraid:

The rules are structured like this instead:

"I can drive my car (at up to 140mph). I can, and indeed must, drive if it blocks the road."

Compare with: "A unit can wheel once during a charge. It can, and ideed must,..."
I take it: you see the analogy on both levels, the surface structure AND the underlying principles of the semantics concerned?


Greetings
Festus

edit: and to your idea of a thing/rule *further up* you could easily add to the top: "I must drive safely" or something similar. This in no way alters the inherent structure of the two sentences.
Only if it referred directy to the following sentences, it would have any impact on the semantics involved.

Atrahasis
30-08-2005, 09:40
"It can, and indeed must, wheel to maximise"

Why say "can" here, unless to qualify the previous "can"?
Surely if the wheel to maximise was intended to be the minimum allowable wheel and not the exact allowable wheel, then it would merely say "it must wheel [...]", and then go on to say that any wheel that achieves this maximum is permissable.

No permission is given for wheeling more than is necessary to maximise chargers.

T10: Where does your maximum speed limit of 90kph come from?

Festus
30-08-2005, 09:46
Why, oh why do you try to explain something that is not there?

You always go like: "Why use this here?" or "Why should they write it such and such if...?"
This is nothing to argue about: I simply don't know why the designers of the game wrote the rules they way they did, and I surely will never find out. Maybe they did it for aesthetic reasons, because the connection of thema and rhema comes more explicitly to the fore if written like that... Who knows?

But I know the rules as they are written and those are rather clear:

"A unit can wheel once during a charge."

Festus

Atrahasis
30-08-2005, 10:05
But I know the rules as they are written and those are rather clear:

"A unit can wheel once during a charge."

I can do anything by taking a single sentence out of context:

"A character model which is more than 5" from a friendly unit of 5 or more models can be shot at without any restrictions."

Range is a restriction, so that doesn't apply.
Line of sight is a restriction, so that doesn't apply.
The various negative modifiers to hit could be seen as restrictions, so we'll have to discuss which of those apply.

T10
30-08-2005, 10:07
T10: Where does your maximum speed limit of 90kph come from?

I assume you refer to the original context (the source of our analogy). In this case it refers to the point where continued wheeling will result in fewer charging models being brought into contact with the enemy.

Between the minimum required wheel and the maximum possible (I say allowed) wheel there is a range (degrees of wheeling) that wil result in the same number of charging models getting into contact with the enemy.

-T10

Atrahasis
30-08-2005, 10:11
I assume you refer to the original context (the source of our analogy). In this case it refers to the point where continued wheeling will result in fewer charging models being brought into contact with the enemy.

Between the minimum required wheel and the maximum possible (I say allowed) wheel there is a range (degrees of wheeling) that wil result in the same number of charging models getting into contact with the enemy.

-T10

Ah, of course. Was being dense, sorry.

I'm still of the opinion that the charge is limited to getting as many people into contact with as little wheeling as possible.

Major Defense
30-08-2005, 11:35
It's not an opinion, Atrahasis. It's a *******' fact! Festus, T10, and whomever is unfortunate enough to have to play with them, can go on ignoring certain parts of the BRB but I won't sit by idly and let them state it here as if it were anything other than COMPLETE AND TOTAL ********. Just man up and call it a house rule and we can be done.

The whole point of this forum is to clarify rules and the uber-wheel is not there in text unless you ignore everything after the first sentence of that paragraph. I never understood this to be an accepted method of reading but the 5" rule pointed out above is a perfect example of how these deviants would treat an otherwise clearly stated rule. I looked through the entire book and couldn't find a rule stating that I can't shove a dragon model up my opponent's ass. The first few sentences in the movement section support my "dragon-ass move" and it doesn't matter which ones because I only read what I wanted to interpret. Yeah, that's reasonable.

T10
30-08-2005, 12:20
Verbose. I guess that's worth some kind of rebuttal.

-T10

Festus
30-08-2005, 20:39
Ah, never mind him... :rolleyes:

Atrahasis-
Your idea is nice, but you happen to *deliberately* forget the chapter of the rulebook this is in:"A character model which is more than 5" from a friendly unit of 5 or more models can be shot at without any restrictions."
This happens to be in the *targetting characters* section. See?

Mine happens to be in the *manoeuvring during a charge* section.
There is no claim that the unit can maybe make more way than their charge reach, or that it can fly during a charge.
I wouldn't dream of such a thing.

See the difference?

Asks
Festus

Atrahasis
31-08-2005, 08:46
Your idea is nice, but you happen to *deliberately* forget the chapter of the rulebook this is in:"A character model which is more than 5" from a friendly unit of 5 or more models can be shot at without any restrictions."
This happens to be in the *targetting characters* section. See?Am I not targetting a character, just as you are manoeuvring during a charge?

Tarax
31-08-2005, 15:01
As I see it, whether you're charging skirmishers or ranked units, you move the shortest distance between both units. You wheel only if you can bring more models (of the charging unit) in base contact.

Most of the time it will simply be a move forward, but sometimes you have to wheel just to get the enemy in front of you. In which case you wheel only that much so that a simple move forward will get you in contact. This last bit is specially true with skirmishers.

Major Defense
01-09-2005, 10:12
Here's an idea...let's put it to a vote!

mageith
01-09-2005, 13:35
Here's an idea...let's put it to a vote!
From another forum

Tactical charges are allowed in 6e and should be more clearly allowed in 7e.
58% [ 27 ]
Tactical charges are allowed in 6e and but shouldn't be in 7e.
21% [ 10 ]
Tactical charges are are not allowed in 6e but should be allowed in 7e.
4% [ 2 ]
Tactical charges are not allowed in 6e and should not ever be allowed.
15% [ 7 ]

Total Votes : 46

T10
01-09-2005, 13:55
What does the use of the term "tactical charge" mean in the context of the vote?

-T10

mageith
01-09-2005, 13:59
Wheeling more than the minumum on any charge but still maximizing models in the end.

Festus
01-09-2005, 15:36
Wow!

Funnily enough, I am with the majority on this one. Buggers! ;)

No, really: This seems to show two things:

1st The rules really leave a scope for discussion (as if this thread hadn't shown already :) )
2nd The majority understands the rules as a permit to wheel as much as you like if you still maximise the attackers.

This tells us something about semantics and the way men understand texts, I hope.

Greetings
Festus

Atrahasis
01-09-2005, 16:04
Unfortunately, majority rule is a poor measure of how a rule is written/works.

There are several (at least) "rules" which are commonly held to be real but which in fact do not exist or do not say what they are believed to say.

Festus
01-09-2005, 16:26
Hi

Unfortunately, majority rule is a poor measure of how a rule is written/works.

I never stated that it were, did I?

It just tells us that there is no problem in understanding the rules in a different way. Anything else is open to interpretation.
We probably will never come to an agreement about how this particular rule works, and this is fine. But some comments made in this thread were a bit to harsh and absolute for my liking.

As a best-of, here we go. Enjoy.


Just please do me the courteousy of NOT arguing such obvious separations from the actual rules as if they are legitimate.

There is no "getting away with" because nobody chooses how they are going to move their chargers. Not ever. Even after this thread is beat in to irrelevance.

You and your "the world should work how I want" opinions are going nowhere fast and only serving to make others as confused as you already are. If you really lack excitement in life and need to bicker on a forum then I would be happy to insult you in every which way over private messages.

See!? That's it!! If you can just read between the lines and interpret the word "can" outside of the context of the paragraph that it is in, then you "can" wheel as much as you want - and it is newly apparent you can wheel to whatever direction you want as long as you do the fair and just thing of ignoring both the spirit and the letter of the rules. Buckfutter!!

And I really have to add that I liked this one best (especially with the bit of data MageIth supplied us with): :(


There is no FAQ specifying that you can't "over wheel" because most people understood the rules for what they are.

Now:


I'm not trying to be a jerk (that's not to say that I am not in fact a jerk)...

Well, mate, it seems you failed.


I, again, rest my case.
Oh, I cannot agree more... :D

Greetings
Festus

T10
02-09-2005, 07:11
Wheeling more than the minumum on any charge but still maximizing models in the end.

Just checking ;-)

After all, charging is normally a tactical decision in itself. :-)

-T10

Gabacho Mk.II
02-09-2005, 07:51
The more I read the replies in this thread, the more confused i become.


IMO, the 'way' that we wheel in our group [22 players of all ages], we move our charging units and wheel (when necessary) in order to finally make contact with the enemy [charged] unit.

Thus, in the given example of this thread; ranked unit charging a skirmishing unit, our group would certainly vote for the 1st option from among the 3 posted earlier on in the thread.



I just dont see how ANYONE can justify a wheel given in option 3, since what you are clearly doing is attempting to run into the chariot after/when you break the skirmishing unit.

To me, and IMO, this is wrong and against the principles of wheeling.




Needed to add my voice to this thread...

mageith
02-09-2005, 14:18
Just checking ;-)

After all, charging is normally a tactical decision in itself. :-)

-T10
It's not a name I made up. I guess I thought it was more widely used than it is.

In addition, I don't even think it's 'tactical' in the military sense, only in the gamey since. It's taking advantage of a poorly written rule to have control over something that mililarily you wouldn't have control over.

Charging, of course, is the most often used tactic in the game.

Ith

Gabacho Mk.II
02-09-2005, 16:13
Would like to add one last bit to this thread.


When our group was discussing/arguing this exact question, we soon arrived at a crucial point on this matter.

One of our members asked what would happen if the skirmishing [charged] unit elected to Flee... Well then, we all realized that the ranked [charging] unit would INDEED move forward in order to engage the CLOSEST skirmishing model, withOUT wheeling or fudging its direction.

You then need to apply the same principle to the charging unit, throughout any consideration as to how much wheeling is NECESSARY before making contact.



I strongly believe that this type of question needs to be looked at in order to gain a better understanding of the issue.

Festus
02-09-2005, 20:17
Hi

...a crucial point on this matter.

One of our members asked what would happen if the skirmishing [charged] unit elected to Flee... Well then, we all realized that the ranked [charging] unit would INDEED move forward in order to engage the CLOSEST skirmishing model, withOUT wheeling or fudging its direction.

Unfortunately, this happens to be simply not true.

The charging unit has to move to the final position of the fleeing unit, using a wheel still if necessary.


You then need to apply the same principle to the charging unit, throughout any consideration as to how much wheeling is NECESSARY before making contact.

You see, the point we are (were) debating here is if the rules permit unnecessary wheels, so your *principle* itself is the subject of the question here.


I strongly believe that this type of question needs to be looked at in order to gain a better understanding of the issue.
I will be the last one to deprive you of your strong belief, but you can believe me that I looked into even more types of question more deeply than that and still didn't come to a definite conclusion.
I just try to keep the rules as open as possible for the players without introducing any unneeded restrictions which are based on interpretation and not on rules.

Greetings
Festus

Major Defense
02-09-2005, 22:36
From another forum

www.anotherforum.com

Nope. Can't find it there.



Festus, misunderstanding and picking apart Gabacho's post doesn't make you any less wrong. I won't even correct you anymore because you stopped listening a long time ago. To you this is now some sort of onupmanship or last-post-before-admin-locks-it competition. Good luck with all that.

Rioghan Murchadha
03-09-2005, 03:10
Honestly, I don't see how you can argue with something so clear cut.

P52 WFB

When a unit charges an enemy the player must endeavour to bring as many models from the charging unit into combat as possible. This can sometimes be achieved by moving the chargers straight forward, but often it will be necessary to wheel slightly to face the enemy.

Bringing as many models from the charging unit into contact is moot in this situation as skirmishers align to the charging unit, with maximum available frontage.

P52 WFB

During a charge a unit can wheel once. It can and indeed must, wheel in order to maximise the number of charging models able to fight.

Notice that this phrase only says the unit 'can' wheel in order to maximise the # of charging models. This is covered by the above point regarding skirmishers being charged.

P52 WFB

Once a unit has completed any required wheel (see above) it is moved straight forward towards the enemy and stops as soon as the two units touch.

The paragraph on aligning the combatants is not used as skirmishers align to the chargers, not vice versa.

There is nothing in the rulebook to support charging whatever part of a skirmishing unit you wish.

But hey.. keep reading stuff that isn't there =)

R

Gabacho Mk.II
03-09-2005, 07:17
I will be the last one to deprive you of your strong belief, but you can believe me that I looked into even more types of question more deeply than that and still didn't come to a definite conclusion.
I just try to keep the rules as open as possible for the players without introducing any unneeded restrictions which are based on interpretation and not on rules.




Festus,

Basically, what you are saying here [and clear me if I am wrong] is somewhat akin to having the best of both [or in this case; ALL] worlds in regard to this question.



> When a charging unit declares a charge against a skirmishing unit, the charging unit can [at the behest of the player] elect to angle and tweak its facing so as to allow it [if circumstances and positioning is viable] to face *any* angle before making contact against the skirmishing unit.

Thus, you can, at your discretion, WHEEL MORE THAN NECESSARY when needed, in order to come about and be able to over-run against remaining enemy units [when and if the skirmishing unit is destroyed and followed up or pursued].


Okay, that is your tack.

However...

> You also wish to reserve the right to move DIRECTLY forwards against a fleeing skirmishing unit, without any wheeling, in order to make contact with and run down the fleeing skirmishing unit...

Huh? :eyebrows:


So then, again, at least in my interpretation of your stance [and by all means correct me if you this is not what you are saying/arguing], you may wish to wheel when it allows you to have a wider operating field and bestows many more options when/if you break a skirmishing unit upon your charge... and at the same time you wish to be able to choose to move your ranked unit directly forwards [WITHOUT wheeling], in order to have the shortest route between your charging unit and the [in my example] fleeing skirmishing unit. :eyebrows:



That, my friend, is having your cake and eating it too.

In my book, and in my weak reasoning, I can not see how you would be able to argue this against an opponent and get away with it.

If you have played in this fashion, and continue to play from what I gather, then, sir, you are wrong in your interpretation. At least in my opinion and in the opinion of several gamers that I often game with.


At this point, I could care less with the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of this issue. But I will not allow you to pull this type of gimmick if you were ever to play against me. Period.



Sooner or later, I am sure that you will come across someone who will interpret a movement or charging rule that is quite different to your understanding of the rules. How will you react?... Will you read the BRB and the rules contained therein with a 'broad interpretation,' or will you hold to a 'narrow' understanding of [or plain text reading] of the rules? ... I wonder.

I would think that you would allow him the luxury to explain his stance, correct?

Festus
03-09-2005, 08:49
Hi


So then, again, at least in my interpretation of your stance [and by all means correct me if you this is not what you are saying/arguing], you may wish to wheel when it allows you to have a wider operating field and bestows many more options when/if you break a skirmishing unit upon your charge... and at the same time you wish to be able to choose to move your ranked unit directly forwards [WITHOUT wheeling], in order to have the shortest route between your charging unit and the [in my example] fleeing skirmishing unit.
Yes, this basically is it. And I do not see anything bad about it.


That, my friend, is having your cake and eating it too.
You may call it like that if you want to and this is just your personal interpretation.

Do you really think any officer of a unit worth his salt will not try to get into the most advantageous position possible for him under the circumstances given?
Do you really think our little lead soldiers have to mill about like some Warcraft-y peons, following just the simplest sets of orders and knowing nothing like initiative, understanding and/or movement on a battlefield?
Well, I don't.

But we don't have to agree on that.



If you have played in this fashion, and continue to play from what I gather, then, sir, you are wrong in your interpretation. At least in my opinion and in the opinion of several gamers that I often game with.
As you correctly point out, this is your opinion, and mine is different from yours.
The reasons behind our differing opinions may be not that easy to see and assess properly.

So we disagree - as we surely do in quite a few other matters, either rules or real life.
This is not a problem, it is a chance to communicate.
But...

At this point, I could care less with the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of this issue. But I will not allow you to pull this type of gimmick if you were ever to play against me. Period.
Ah, nevermind :rolleyes:

Greetings
Festus


And now to something completely different:

Festus, misunderstanding and picking apart Gabacho's post doesn't make you any less wrong.
You, mate, are very quick with statements about right or wrong. :wtf:
I take it you are a good christian? And possibly you have a very red neck, too?


I won't even correct you anymore ...
Thank you very much indeed, master :rolleyes:


...because you stopped listening a long time ago.
Listening to what? To your insults? If you want to sample them again, see above...


To you this is now some sort of onupmanship or last-post-before-admin-locks-it competition. Good luck with all that.
Enlight us with your wisdom about my state of mind and my purpose in life, master! :rolleyes:

Festus

T10
03-09-2005, 11:35
It is worth noting that when charging a fleeing unit there is a clear restriction: the charging unit must move along the shortest path towards the unit regardless of wether the unit has sufficient move reach them or not.

There are a number of issues worth discussing when handling fleeing ranked units as well as skirmishers.

- It the unit is within reach, do you still maneuver to get as many of your own troops into "combat"? This can be tricky, since normally it often requires the free "aligning wheel".

- If the unit is out of reach? You need to approach the unit, but no amount of wheeling will increase the number of models you bring into combat. Likewise, regardless of wheeling you will not bring fewer models into contact with the enemy.

- Exactly what determines the direction the fleing unit moves? What about the skirmishing unit in particular?

- What restriction applies to how the skirmishing unit changes its formation (i.e. the relative postions of its models)?

-T10

Major Defense
03-09-2005, 12:30
You, mate, are very quick with statements about right or wrong.Indeed I am when I have a book that clearly contradics your wrong thinking.
I take it you are a good christian?You can tell someone's religion from the way they correctly interpret rules? Oh wait, you can't.
And possibly you have a very red neck, too?WTF!? If that's your heavy ammunition then you will lose a game of dozens with me, child.
Thank you very much indeed, masterWell at least your sarcasm has manners.
Enlight us with your wisdom about my state of mind and my purpose in life, master!Sorry, it's not in the BRB.

Rioghan Murchadha
03-09-2005, 15:39
There are two simple sentences in the BRB that completely shoot down Festus' entire argument that it seems he will not acknowledge.

1: A unit can, and must wheel in order to bring the maximum number of models into combat.

This maximum contact can be achieved by touching a single skirmisher as they then form up to the charging unit with maximised frontage.

and 2: Once any required wheel has been made (one to maximise contact), the charging unit is moved straight forward. This is all on p52 of the BRB.

Again, you only get a wheel during a charge to get more models into combat, and after that, you must move straight forward, followed by the fact that if you contact a single skirmisher, you achieve max models in combat.

R

Major Defense
03-09-2005, 16:00
Rioghan, you're not listening to the oversimplified logic that makes Festus' argument valid. All he is reading is the first sentence that says that he "can" wheel. He doesn't need to read any further and ignorance, as they say, is bliss.

That's this whole *******' argument in a nutshell.

Rioghan Murchadha
03-09-2005, 20:13
Heh, Major, I'm just trying his tactic of repeating myself until the other party gets to tired to argue. ;)

R

Major Defense
03-09-2005, 22:04
Okay, I'll do it too. ;)

No, Rioghan!! I'm smart and I'm not a Christian redneck (whatever that means or is) and I know that you're not listening to the oversimplified logic that makes [name removed so nobody's feelings get hurt] argument valid. I know you think you're trying his tactic of repeating yourself until the other party gets too tired to argue but despite all evidence to that point I happen to be able to misinterpret what you're saying so that you are wrong no matter how you explain it to me! Ha ha!

:cheese:

Your turn.

Lord Lucifer
04-09-2005, 01:10
Enough of the insults, people.
Argue about the points and rules, not the people.

-Lucifer
Forum Moderator

Gabacho Mk.II
04-09-2005, 07:43
Hi

Yes, this basically is it. And I do not see anything bad about it.

Festus



But, Festus, that is contradictory when it comes to simple reasoning.

Can you not see this???

You are arguing that you can, at your pleasure, choose to either follow the intention and printing of the rules, or, when necessary, CHOOSE to make a WIDER THAN NECESSARY wheel in order to attain a 'better' position/facing before a charge, against skirmishing units... which is nowhere in the rules.... Except if you wish to add it to your own version of the rulebook.








Do you really think any officer of a unit worth his salt will not try to get into the most advantageous position possible for him under the circumstances given?
Do you really think our little lead soldiers have to mill about like some Warcraft-y peons, following just the simplest sets of orders and knowing nothing like initiative, understanding and/or movement on a battlefield?
Well, I don't.

Festus


Please dont compare historical warfare with that presented by GW in Warhammer Fantasy. This would be such a simple premise to undermine, and not quite worth the time to use examples and text to disprove. I will leave it at that.







As you correctly point out, this is your opinion, and mine is different from yours.
The reasons behind our differing opinions may be not that easy to see and assess properly.

Festus



I have to STRONGLY disagree on this point.

You are, in my opinioin, clearly bending the rules in this matter.

You wish to read as much as you can into the rules, when it openly benefits you, and lightly argue away the point by stating that "you and I are of differing opinions..."

I am sorry sir, but you arent playing by the established rules and dictates of miniature gaming.

You are, in my strong opinion, bending the rules [to suit your cause] because of the lack of clear situational examples and text concerning skirmishing rules. This type of action, again IMO, is cheating. Pure and simple.





The main rules, on the whole, are easy to understand and operate with. Certain situational aspects however, such as charging against skirmishers, can be [and are being, as posted in this thread] argued without recourse. Any person, given their fancy, can add or remove intentions and certain reading of the rules in order to gain an unfair advantage.

This is being done and argued, IMO, by Festus and others in this thread.

I am saddened by these actions. It does nothing to further our gaming community other than insult the intelligence of some, and misguide those who wish to join and game Warhammer Fantasy.


This is my last post on this matter. Thanks for reading and replying. :)

Festus
04-09-2005, 08:10
Hi

You wish to read as much as you can into the rules, when it openly benefits you, and lightly argue away the point by stating that "you and I are of differing opinions..."

You don't certainly mean it, do you?

It doesn't have to benefit me, it is to the mutual *benefit* of all the players.

To me rules are the same for everybody, not just me and certainly not only just when they benefit one or the other.

I even rarely charge Skirmishers at all, because this is*silly business*, as they will easily evade into some woods or behind a wall or some such, even if the oponent is only *partially clever* (ie. not a complete nutcase :) ). I leave the task of dealing with skirmishers either to my Skirmishers or chase them away by threatening to crush them...

I don't want to gain an unfair advantage, I want to play by the rules.

Our understanding of the rules differs, based on differnen pre- and assumption, I believe. But this doesn't make the one a rule abiding person and the other one a cheater and rules bender IMO.

It just shows the need for further discussion.

And obviously there are quite some people who understand the rules in a differing way (see the two polls on this matter ;) )...

...and this is something you can't simply argue away by saying: *bah, those are all wrong and play as cheats*...

Festus

On a personal note -

Could you please refrain from calling me a cheater? Or a *rules bender* or some such, as I really don't want to
insult the intelligence of some, and misguide those who wish to join and game Warhammer Fantasy any further.

Major Defense
04-09-2005, 12:23
I am saddened by these actions. It does nothing to further our gaming community other than insult the intelligence of some, and misguide those who wish to join and game Warhammer Fantasy.

That is my exact purpose for being so forceful about this issue of moving chargers. Well, except that I am not saddened. I would hate to have someone come here seeking advice on a rule and get misguided or even lied to. It defeats the whole purpose of this forum being here.

Tarax
04-09-2005, 14:02
From another forum

Tactical charges are allowed in 6e and should be more clearly allowed in 7e.
58% [ 27 ]
Tactical charges are allowed in 6e and but shouldn't be in 7e.
21% [ 10 ]
Tactical charges are are not allowed in 6e but should be allowed in 7e.
4% [ 2 ]
Tactical charges are not allowed in 6e and should not ever be allowed.
15% [ 7 ]

Total Votes : 46

Can I bring in another option:

"A charging unit must endeavour to bring as many models from both sides in combat." (instead of maximizing the number of charging models)

Festus
04-09-2005, 15:50
Hi

I would hate to have someone come here seeking advice on a rule and get misguided or even lied to.
Here we go d'accord, because so do I.

But I still have yet to find someone lieing here, thankfully...

Greetings
Festus

mageith
05-09-2005, 14:34
Can I bring in another option:

"A charging unit must endeavour to bring as many models from both sides in combat." (instead of maximizing the number of charging models)
Essentially we were having the same argument on another forum as you folks are having. I wanted to give everyone a chance to give their opinion on the current rules. I was disappointed in the results.

Your suggestion, I believe is superior to the current rule set but it is clearly not the current rule set. I'd like the wording more to be like "maximize frontage" rather than models. The charger must cover the opponent's frontage or allow his frontage to be covered.

Ith

Tarax
06-09-2005, 12:28
Your suggestion, I believe is superior to the current rule set but it is clearly not the current rule set.

Ith

Thank you.

I was thinking more in the line of making it a change into 7th ed.