VC crumble question

[Fruhauf]

The problem is that you cannot reform.
So unless you whipe em out by attacks allone you lose 3 to 4 combat rounds.

And that is broken

The way I intend on playing it, until it is FAQ'd, is that my opponent can get a reform but not an overrun (of course providing the unit was eliminated on crumble) now as it has been pointed out, this is almost a double whammy for me, now is that broken too?

The way I read close combat is end of combat phase, pursue \ flee, now, combat resolution is worked out before that, thus a first turn charge, unit completely wiped out and yes, this does include crumble, melting, or falling to bits, the charger should be able to over run, this represents the momentum of their charge and one turn slaughter, like a blender, and off they shoot again...
What you think a dark elf corsair, or black guard will just sit down and play poker with the rest of the gang going "oh well, the guys we rekilled just crumbled to dust in front of us, let's scratch our heads in bewilderment and confusion" while there's a full scale war going on

Again, which is why I plan on playing it where you can reform but not overrun, from a different fluff perspective... given that crumble is AFTER combat, why would someone run in to the undead as they were falling apart? undead are fear causing, what's more fearful than that as they really wouldn't know what was going on.

[hazmiter]

Crumble happens during the combat resolution, but before break, flee, pursue.

[Fruhauf]

Crumble happens during the combat resolution, but before break, flee, pursue.

how can it? do you have evidence for this? and this still doesn't suggest if you would be able to reform or pursue

[GodlessM]

GodlessM, you miss the purpose of the wipeout rule.

Either way... for everyone else:
Attachment 140863

Congrads on officially going to the heights of ridiculous rules lawyering and ignoring the post you were replying to completely. As I said, read the Wipeout rules and stop pussyfooting around it with jumbled up bits of other rules, and adding significance to any individual word that benefits your cause. I take it you also think a Steam Tank can't be HKB'ed since it isn't a creature as well right?

[Smogg]

Congrads on officially going to the heights of ridiculous rules lawyering and ignoring the post you were replying to completely. As I said, read the Wipeout rules and stop pussyfooting around it with jumbled up bits of other rules, and adding significance to any individual word that benefits your cause. I take it you also think a Steam Tank can't be HKB'ed since it isn't a creature as well right?

Even though I don't agree with your line of arguing I'm not here to exchange insults. So that part you will have to deal with yourself.

Regardless of all this, read the Wipeout rules and it makes the whole thing clearer. There is no clause for them to be wiped out before calculating combat resolution at all, only that all of one side is gone, so an overrun is allowed.

So since you ask, here is my take on the wipeout rule:

P 52 and p 53 describe the step 2 : Calculate Combat Results.

When you enter step 2. There is basically two options:

1. There are still models alive on both sides
2. There are only models alive from one side

P 52-53 goes into detail on how to deal with situation 1. That is, how to calculate which side won, and to determine the combat resolution.

P 53 the Wipeout! section at the end tells you what to do in situation 2. If there are only models alive from one side: Don't add up combat resolution because the surviving side is automatically the winner.

The Wipeout! rule is important so you don't end up fleeing even after killing your enemy. You automatically won! YAY
Now the end of the Wipeout section then kindly remind the reader (Who at this point may not have read P57 and P58) that further into the book they can find rules for their two options: Restrain or Overrun

In short:
Wipeout! Handles the one exception where you DON'T calculate close combat results. Therefore it does not make sense to try use Wipeout! to allow for overrun after crumbling. Crumbling does require calculating a close combat result!

Either way. The wipeout! rule still reference the overrun rule on p58. If you want to overrun, you have to follow the rule in the overrun section.

But lets look in the actual text of the wipeout rule:
"Of course, if one side has been completely wiped out in the fight, the other side is automatically the winner."

Fight obviously refer to the fight as in "Fight a round of close combat"
Automatically the winner only make sense in the context where you DON'T need to calculate the close combat result

Frankly the wipeout rule just support my whole argumentation by being fully aligned with the close combat structure and the restrictions written in the overrun section.

[Scalebug]

mmm... but this is is what I meant by convoluted reading and interpretation above... as opposed to the obvious interpretation that if you have wiped out your opponents, you have wiped out your opponents.

I'm awaiding using hte term "rules lawyering", because of its obvious negative light, but it is what it is... same with easter-egging; but what you have done here is found a nice little bonus in the rules, haven't you?

There is no reason, game balance, rules mechanics, fluff, what have you, for crumbling units to have this "little bonus".

[bad dice]

The way I intend on playing it, until it is FAQ'd, is that my opponent can get a reform but not an overrun (of course providing the unit was eliminated on crumble) now as it has been pointed out, this is almost a double whammy for me, now is that broken too?

Oh that's nice now you get to decide how we play the game.
I mean it's one way or the other you either can't do it both or you can do it both it's just one rule.
You don't get to pick an choose the things you like, that's just madness.
And what the hell do you mean by its a double whammy for me? You mean it's hurts you twice as much to use only have of the rules effecting everybody else for your undead?
Now that's just wierd.

As stated before in this thread
There is a decent RAW argument for not being able to reform overrun
There is also a more than decent RAI argument for that beeing totaly broken. And not even just for undead. Skaven slaves and squigs would also be much better.
And seeing how those two units are already pretty powerful as is. I don't it's intended like that. But lets all just spam GW and this goes to the FAQ

[Fruhauf]

Oh that's nice now you get to decide how we play the game.
I mean it's one way or the other you either can't do it both or you can do it both it's just one rule.
You don't get to pick an choose the things you like, that's just madness.
And what the hell do you mean by its a double whammy for me? You mean it's hurts you twice as much to use only have of the rules effecting everybody else for your undead?
Now that's just wierd.

As stated before in this thread
There is a decent RAW argument for not being able to reform overrun
There is also a more than decent RAI argument for that beeing totaly broken. And not even just for undead. Skaven slaves and squigs would also be much better.
And seeing how those two units are already pretty powerful as is. I don't it's intended like that. But lets all just spam GW and this goes to the FAQ

Hmm, actually, you've taken this out of context. I said this is the way I intend on playing, with my friends, not with you. I have not decided how anyone else has to play the game, you play it your way and I'll play it my way. One of the early principles of the rulebook is that you can do as you please with them, obviously not for tournaments but for friendly games and house rules you can do as you please, heck make your own army up if you want.
It's not madness either, there is no true clarity on it as this now 50 post thread has shown so why should I take either side when I can come up with a balanced middle?
And I mean for a double whammy, by offering my opponents the chance to reform and not overrun, there is basically 0 chance of me baiting them horribly out of position and they can always reform to face the nearest danger, if they had pursued and exposed their flanks/rear to me I'm sure I could mop up a unit much quicker, it doesn't take much to work that bit out. By having only reform I am giving them the better option of the two (would you rather reform or overrun in most situations if there is no opponent to catch?) So essentially yes I mean it hurts me more, but it makes sense fluff wise, at least it does to me and I'm not here to mock your opinions so I suggest you have the decency to do the same.


Oh and for the record, I'm a casual game player, none of my battles are taken too seriously so it's win or lose, we'll have a drink at the end... which is why I intend on taking my own interpretation of the rules along BUT I will make sure my opponent knows of this beforehand, unless they can suggest a better alternative and seeing as this was a problem I have previously encountered with my friends (hence me asking here!) I'm sure they won't have a confident solution either.

[bad dice]

OK well you might be right.
Sorry i might have misunderstoud whit that statement.
Of course you are free to do as you please whit your friends.
It's just that i assumed you did mean it in a other way since well if you ment just your friends there is no reason to share it here tbh.
But i can totaly get where your comming from so again sorry.

I do want to point out that whit te exception of frenzied troops, no one needs to overrun so even whit normal troops baiting isn't all that likely to happen.

But i get what you mean pursuing does have the risk of exposing you flanks. But so does chargeing undead cause they wil normaly not whipeout in a single turn unless they get charged by something really really nasty.

[hazmiter]

Arguement is balanced, emailed gw for clarification, because it is very murky with rules.

EDIT: Got reply from gw, yes over run can be used after all models in first round have crumbled.
Will copy paste it when not on phone.

[bad dice]

My quistion can back the same.
Altough they used the whipeout rule to awnser it
I sent in a request for a more in debt awnser.

[Smogg]

Who did you mail hazmiter and bad dice?
- If its just the order-trolls at GW, it's not gonna help much either way

[hazmiter]

Not just the order trolls, and gw are just about the only real way of figuring it out.
I mailed gw help desk, I do so on occassion to get actual rules querys sorted without *TROLLS*
Honestly I should have done so earlier.
And I generally go with gw for rules queerys over self interested players.
Ie, no over run after 1st turn charge yadayadayada, it sounds just like the whole, oh look, I have a army that has a weakness, I want to get rid of that weakness.
No offence is intended, and I have played as, and against VC. Yes, crumble sucks on the first turn, but if you crumble, and its on that first turn, you have misjudged your opponent.

I'll wait for one dice to extrapoliate on the gw situation.

[Smogg]

Sure, either way, I look forward to reading the question, reply and reasoning.

[Mostream]

Emailing GW is not a reliable way of solving a rules query. Not only do they lack proper expertise, but they cannot be trusted as an official answer anywhere.
Try asking an advanced rules question 5 times with 5 different emails randomly over the period of, say.. 3 weeks. I'm sure you won't get the same answer all 5 times.

with luck you might get the same answer 5 times out of 5. Now hand that to a bigger than local tournament organiser and tell him it's GW official rules and see what he says.

[Lance Tankmen]

GW answers one of its own rules, must be wrong

[Kallstrom]

GW answers one of its own rules, must be wrong

"GW" is not one major Slann sitting on a Throne of Power with the Book of Hoeth. This "GW" cannot be trusted to know everything since it's actually more of a collaboration between loads of different Skavens with Ogre or a Dwarfish eyes for wealth. "GW" is not a hive mind that sets and make the rules since "GW" is a company with loads of different workers on different levels. If one should mail GW they probably come in contact with someone on their Customer Support team, one that probably ain't as hardcore as the "Book of Hoeth reading Throne of Power sitting Slann" (who tends to be a complete RAW-pleasuregirl!)

[bad dice]

Either way bugging them about it is the only way to ever get it in the FAQ

[jtrowell]

The problem is that you cannot reform.
So unless you whipe em out by attacks allone you lose 3 to 4 combat rounds.

And that is broken

Why would you not be able to reform ? The reform happens after the resolution if you didn't pursue or overrun, so I don't see anything preventing you from doing a reform after the opponent crumble (and as you won the round, you don't even have to pass a Ld check)

[jtrowell]

mmm... but this is is what I meant by convoluted reading and interpretation above... as opposed to the obvious interpretation that if you have wiped out your opponents, you have wiped out your opponents.

I'm awaiding using hte term "rules lawyering", because of its obvious negative light, but it is what it is... same with easter-egging; but what you have done here is found a nice little bonus in the rules, haven't you?

There is no reason, game balance, rules mechanics, fluff, what have you, for crumbling units to have this "little bonus".

You want a fluff reason ? Just one exemple: swarms are also unbreackable and unstable, with their unstable being justified as the opponent crushing the small creatures composing the swarm (sort of like a stomp from human sized models on smaller creatures). If you're only killing a swarm thanks to the unstable rule, then your unit won't be able to overrun: they were too busy crushing the last bugs/snakes/pixies ...

In the same way, it is not hard to imagine that undead just don't crumble in less than 1 second, but that the crumble is a longer effect where the undead unit progressively lose strength until the last ones barely move and are easy to destroy.

Myself, I would accept both overrun being possible or not for unbreackable units killed by the crumble (both can make sense fluff-wise, and both seems balanced), and I was playing like that until recently, but the arguments in this thread seems clear for me: the "round of close combat" is clearly defined, the expression is used several time (and between quotes the first time it is used, confirming it as a true keyword), so unless an errata comes and change it, I will play like that.

Note that you still can overrun an undead unit provided that you killed it during the "round of close combat", like you would for any other unit.

Also, when trying to redirect a frenzied unit (must overrun), being killed by the combat result and not during the figth will be worse for an unstable unit, as you lost the forced overrun that you would get with other redirectors.