Got a good one (I think); if a parent unit is in a building, gets assaulted, and a detachment makes a counter-charge, how is this combat resolved? It is the only instance in the game I can think of where it is possible to have a unit fighting a unit inside a building and another unit outside the building at the same time. I don't believe there are rules to cover this circumstance is there?
My brain just exploded like in an old episode of Star Trek.
"Everything I say is a lie."
Originally Posted by Dr Zoidberg
Only if dinner and the movie were both of a high quality...
Like with an over-run, Assaulted on building is aborted, unit moved back to the 1" line and will fight the detachment there. Extreme cases the move backcould even lead to no close combat being fought at all; 20mm base models, one deep, single file detachment for one reason or another... but generally, you will fight the detachment.
Is this a solution or is it actually in the rules?
It's in the FAQ;
Q: What happens if a unit that is assaulting a building is itself
charged? (p127)
A: The assault on the building is abandoned (move the unit
that was assaulting the building backward 1") The two units
outside the building are now engaged in combat instead and
will fight a round of combat this turn.
Wow, this opens some almost broken potential in the watchtower scenario.
Does the detachment rule have the same deployment restrictions as it used to (must deploy within a few inches of parent unit)? If so, that disqualifies that parent unit (and the detachments) from deploying in the watchtower at the start of the game.
That would be so, but what's to prevent a parent unit from later occupying the watchtower with a detachment or two outside? Also, since multiple charges can't be made against a building (unless compelled to do so eg Frenzy) then this becomes a more effective tactic.
The only counter I can think of off hand (and this is without having read the new Empire book) is to charge the detachment at the same time as the building.
"That's one man's opinion." Sign off quote from local retired radio announcer Rick Smith
iWAAAGH! Yup, we've got an Orc for dat.
Certainly, but your opponent will likely see it coming from 24" away.
-T10
Will Orc for food!
A move doesn't have to surprise an opponent for it to have a large effect...
So, I haven't double-checked the Detachment deployment rules, because my housemate has the book and is playing tonight at a local store...
Assuming, though, that Detachments are still required to deploy within 3" of their Regimentals, then neither of them would be able to deploy within a Watchtower (since it's certain to be more than 3" from the Deployment Zone). If they can split up at Deployment, then it's unlikely that an Empire player would have a Regimental of only 20 or fewer models, but you might see a Detachment pre-deployed in a Watchtower; that said, Regimentals don't get to counter-charge on behalf of their Detachments, so that's a moot point.
As to the Regimental later occupying the Watchtower: yes, that's a potential concern. And, particularly given the (potential) ability of the Detachment to inherit Steadfast based on the number of ranks (which, arguably, would be zero, if the Regimental is in a building!) or Stubborn (?? again, I don't have the Empire book at hand), it might be awfully awfully bad, trying to charge through Detachments to get to the Regimental inside the Watchtower.
That said, I'm not personally concerned. Maybe because I play Wood Elves, High Elves, Beastmen (all of which have infantry who move faster and hit harder than Empire infantry do) and Orcs (who merely hit harder), but I'm pretty comfortable. Worst case, charge the Detachment with one unit, and the Tower with another...
Remember, you can't charge a Building an a unit outside the building at the same time: the effective rules summary is that Building fights are ALWAYS one-on-one.
Neither the parent unit or the detachment may deploy in the watchtower. That would break the 3" rule.
The countercharging would indeed force the attacker to move away from the tower. Could be a nifty maneuver. The enemy'd better charge the detachment at the same time. Note that the parent should still be able to stand and shoot, which doesn't make it any less nifty.
Regarding Steadfast, the Building rules are a bit unique (something for the errata?) in that a unit in a building is always Steadfast (not stubborn as skirmishers in forests etc). RAW, the detachment therefore becomes steadfast regardless of how many ranks the parent has. Exactly how the Steadfast transfer should work is a matter of debate, though (there is a thread on the topic a bit further down). Not all of the interpretations would allow this scenario.
I think Brynolf get the 'Building Issue' right.
What I want to add (here) is that I find it completely mind-blowing to see that the Building-rules are still being discussed with regards to the Detachment+Steadfast mess.
I mean: This is EASY(!) compared to the 'bigger question' of how to resolve this issue of Steadfast and Detachments all together.
Here is the Rules Discussion on "Steadfast Detachments" where there hasn't been anything added for a while now, ever since me and Brynolf (and EDMM and some others) tried to hammer out the details of what's actually RAW here.
For those that can't be bothered, it basically comes down to two 'interpretations':
The first one, we'll call it the nazi-RAW interpretation, follows a logical sequence from the BRB and how Steadfast is resolved (remember: it's not a Special Rule, but a mechanic that surfaces only at the end of a combat round where certain requirements are met - you need to lose and have more ranks than the enemy). This nazi-RAW interpretation covers all the facettes of the issue, but inevitably leads to the 'whole thing' becoming both circumstantial and also quite gimicky/gamey/counter-intuitive in other very specific situations.
The second interpretation, we'll call it the RAI-interpretation, simply 'simplifies' everything into Detachments being allowed to count the Regimental's Ranks for the purpose of determining Steadfast.
This interpretation is clear-cut, at least slightly intuitive, and at least on surface less complicated to apply in the game - but it is completely made up! *lol*
Ever since people stopped having Anything To Add in the "Detachment Steadfast" thread (linked at the start of this paragraph) I've been continuing to hammer this subject on another Forum. The ridiuclous thing is that NOBODY have been able to shed new wisdom on the "nazi-RAW" interpretation, while even the people who chose to play by the RAI-interpretation can't really reference that in the rules beyond a (subjective) gut-feeling that this is somehow what "Cruddace meant to write".
Anyway, Buildings actually give us a respite: Because here Steadfast is granted as a hard buff. It's the rest of this Detachment-mess that is the tough nut to crack.
Yeah, as it is written, this is pretty straight-forward. But wierd and inconsistent. A garrisson should probably get the Stubborn rule to make it make sense. This is all theoretical, of course, as the effect would essentially be the same. It's just ugly wording of the rules.
This .
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote