PDA

View Full Version : Overrun 2nd combat in same phase ?



knightime98
14-09-2009, 06:25
Looking specifically on page 45 of BRB.

My question is if Player A wins a combat against Player B. Player B runs or is destroyed in the first round of combat then Player A overruns or pursues into Another of Player B's units which HAS NOT fought yet. Player A has the opportunity to fight again with that same unit as per pg. 45. Pg. 45 also says that Player A's unit Can Not pursue any more and are Spent even if they win again. That's not my question. My question is if in the odd event Player B wins the 2nd combat and Player A's unit is spent - Is it allowed to flee? Seems to me they have already moved their max movement and should be cut down right there on site. They are spent! However, the rules just seems to flutter right there and don't even mention it. They assume Player A is going to win again mostly likely by flank charging into a new combat! In most cases this would be true.

The point is - it seems odd that they can not overrun pursue again but it's okay for them to move yet a 3rd time (after being spent) to flee!

xragg
14-09-2009, 06:47
They can flee, but remember that both units have to flee (or be destroyed) for it to even be an issue.

Nurgling Chieftain
14-09-2009, 07:02
It's actually not that uncommon for units to be allowed to flee when they can't do anything else.

The Red Scourge
14-09-2009, 09:24
Fleeing units for instance can do nothing but flee ;)

knightime98
14-09-2009, 20:23
Rules wise perhaps you are right.

However, as a matter of principle - None of you are seeing what I am saying.

If a unit is SPENT, that means - it literally is DONE! It needs to spend an entire turn resting to catch it's breath.. Maybe that's what I'm trying to say..

Again, it seems odd that the unit can not pursue a 2nd time because of this rule spent but OH BY GOLLY GEE WHIZ - we can RUN for a 3rd time in the same turn.

So, if it were a cav unit it could move in the same turn as much as 16" x 3 = 48"... What's wrong with this picture. Ok, my rant is over. I'm just ticked about the non practical side of GW once again dropping the ball on logic!

Read my signature (by Clegane)!

knightime98
14-09-2009, 20:32
Fleeing units for instance can do nothing but flee ;)

New Rule in my book for being practical. Just add "unless they are spent in which case, they are immediately removed from play!"

Bac5665
14-09-2009, 20:44
I think you are reading WAY too much into a rule name. The rule is there very pragmatically to keep units from rolling through an entire flank in one turn. It's not there to punish units in extraordinally rare scenarios. I think this is a good example of GW rules writing. Don't get too hung up on "spent."

If you insist on using fluff to dictate rules, think of the subsequent fleeing as the unit running on pure terror, even though they are too tired to charge a new unit.

narrativium
14-09-2009, 20:48
Rules wise perhaps you are right.

However, as a matter of principle - None of you are seeing what I am saying.

If a unit is SPENT, that means - it literally is DONE! It needs to spend an entire turn resting to catch it's breath.. Maybe that's what I'm trying to say..

Again, it seems odd that the unit can not pursue a 2nd time because of this rule spent but OH BY GOLLY GEE WHIZ - we can RUN for a 3rd time in the same turn.
You're spent in that you can't endure continuing to fight for a long period of time. Pursuit isn't just movement, it's combat, because you're trying to catch other warriors and stampede over them. It's also keeping your life at risk.

If they're fleeing, you're alive. You get to pause. The best way to survive the battle from that point is to stop, look around, and see what else might be about to shoot/charge you. You're not thinking about the next second, you're thinking about the next minute. You conserve your energy, and ready yourself for the next thing. You may need all the energy you've got to flee as fast as you can in a few minutes...

If you're fleeing, you're not worried about the next minute or trying to endure the battle. You're worried about the next second and staying away from what's behind you, so you just run. Reserves be damned, they're after you! Your life depends on getting away.

Drachen_Jager
14-09-2009, 20:59
So, if it were a cav unit it could move in the same turn as much as 16" x 3 = 48"... What's wrong with this picture. Ok, my rant is over. I'm just ticked about the non practical side of GW once again dropping the ball on logic!


Actually it could potentially go 16+(18x2) = 52" because the two moves after the charge are on 3d6 not initial movement attribute. But if that happens to you you should buy a lottery ticket, the odds are probably better of hitting the jackpot there.

The Red Scourge
14-09-2009, 21:06
The game is an abstraction of battles in a fantasy world, it is not a reality simulator. The turn based sequence should pose a lot more problems to you, than rare special occurences like this.

Take two units of knights charging towards each other. Each unit moves at full speed, readying their lances to strike home, but when they crash their fronts into each other only one side will benefit from the lance??? :wtf:

Also, the game is divided across 6 turns, the in-game span of time corresponding to a turn is never defined, and I really doubt a melee is determined within the timepan it takes to throw a few dice ;)

xragg
14-09-2009, 21:26
1/64 x 1/216 x 1/216 = 1 in 2.99 million

A better chance of happening then winning the powerball (over 100 million to 1), but still a pretty rare occurance.

*edit: This obviously doesnt include the odds of having another unit 18" away to pursue into thats in combat. It would be roughly 1/700 (ignoring other units in the way and the actual number of enemy models on the board) to have a unit there and apply whatever odds that it would be in combat. Factoring this dwarfs the odds of even the powerball lottery.

Drachen_Jager
14-09-2009, 21:29
1/64 x 1/216 x 1/216 = 1 in 2.99 million

A better chance of happening then winning the powerball (over 100 million to 1), but still a pretty rare occurance.

Don't forget the improbability of having 3 units in a row, 1 at 16" 1 18" beyond that and another 18" beyond that with no intervening units/terrain to stop you which is probably hundreds of millions (or worse) to one (I'd wager a sizeable amount that it has never happened in the history of the game). THEN winning both combats in the first round.

narrativium
14-09-2009, 21:57
What's the 1/64? The two 18" moves are 1/216, I followed that much.

Nurgling Chieftain
14-09-2009, 22:04
Still, the odds of a unit with a move of 8" travelling well over 16" in a single game turn is actually quite good, and can happen in a large number of different ways.

xragg
14-09-2009, 23:09
What's the 1/64? The two 18" moves are 1/216, I followed that much.

I just applied a weighted distribution for the possible charges of a unit with a movement of 8. I forget what the pattern I used is called, but its the same as rolling 2d8. It creates a high occurance around 8-10", low at the extremes, and non-exhistent at 1". I felt this fit well, but no more science then that. Its not unheard in science of to use a formula that seems to fit until you find a better formula or something occurs to show it cant be right. :)

TheDarkDaff
16-09-2009, 15:38
Don't forget to add in the stats for the unit winning the first combat and the other unit breaking then loosing the next combat. That should blow your number out a bit more especially when you add in the odds on the break tests.

Just thought i would throw in a little bit for the OP. You have to pursue into an existing combat. If you hit an unengaged unit you wait until the next turn to work out the combat.

Keller
18-09-2009, 14:59
Don't forget the improbability of having 3 units in a row, 1 at 16" 1 18" beyond that and another 18" beyond that with no intervening units/terrain to stop you which is probably hundreds of millions (or worse) to one (I'd wager a sizeable amount that it has never happened in the history of the game). THEN winning both combats in the first round.

Well, they could be flyers, thus ignore any terrain in the way (save for woods, of course.) And the initial distance could be 2" farther still....

Alcibiades
20-09-2009, 02:06
Well, they could be flyers, thus ignore any terrain in the way (save for woods, of course.) And the initial distance could be 2" farther still....

2"? You must mean 4": that's a 20" charge reach, instead of 16". Now throw a Vanhels' Danse on there for another 8", and we're looking at a unit that can actually cover some ground....

xragg
20-09-2009, 21:56
Well, in a 2k game, a sorceress on pegasus could potential move 136".

Normal flight move (20")
4 castings of Unseen Lurker (80")
Overrun+Flee (36")

Onisuzume
20-09-2009, 23:51
Although that *would* require 3 additional sorceresses.

IrishDelinquent
22-09-2009, 00:06
Knighttime, I'll try and meet your point of view on equal footing. Yes, it does seem ridiculous that a unit that has just finished charging into a unit, slaughtering said unit, and then charging into another one would still have the energy to flee. However, you must look at it from a thematic point of view as well:

The triumphant warriors zealously pursue their foes, before their momentum carries them into another battle. However, their opponents, whether by sheer weight of numbers or brutal combat skills, overwhelm both our heroes and their allies. In the face of such odds, it is only reasonable that a soldier would flee. When faced with certain death or a chance at survival, any mortal would choose the latter, regardless of their exhaustion. They force their weary muscles into action, drawing a meagre second wind to escape for their very lives!

See, now it makes sense from a fluff point of view.