PDA

View Full Version : Illegal? Or just cheese?



PurpleSun
03-04-2013, 16:41
167980167981167982

Can you tell me if this is illegal or just cheese?

Opponent charges my Skull Catapult with his Daemon Prince, stops about 1 1/2 inches away, and then uses his free wheel to just touch the corner to the Catapult and have his facing towards my Casket. The rulebook says that since there is no real base on warmachines, you just have to touch it, not close the door. Anyway, he kills the Catapult then overruns into the Casket. I could not find anywhere in the rules where it says that you cannot do this, but it just feels so gamey that it should be wrong.

Thoughts?

hamsterwheel
03-04-2013, 17:47
This can turn into a hot topic but technically by the way the rules were written, your opponent was correct assuming he killed the entire crew of the Skull Catapult in the close combat phase that he charged in and not by a failed break test.

ewar
03-04-2013, 17:47
Legal. Gamey is up for debate, I'd do it without a second thought; the alignment rules are pretty clear. I don't see it as any more gamey than charge redirecting with an eagle or sabretusk.

Lord Inquisitor
03-04-2013, 17:53
Certainly legal. Something I'd consider "a bit gamey" but not "totally bastardly".

leopard
03-04-2013, 18:13
Thought you had to move into combat by the most direct route possible? this sort of stuff being possible if you start off to one side - as you pick when to make the wheel you would have to make thus have control over the angle to a level - but if you are dead ahead and there is no need to wheel to make contact not so sure. (if not there certainly should be a rule that you move by the most direct route - avoiding other units or obstacles that could cause a penalty of some sort)

Not got the book with me though, and aware there are many who would play it this way - best bet is to assume it will happen and just deploy units to counter it or at least in consideration of it.

Lord Inquisitor
03-04-2013, 18:18
There is no rule that you have to move in by the most direct route. You can tactically wheel as much as you like as long as you maximise models on both sides, hit the correct facing and close the door. With a war machine you don't even need to do any of these, which makes it much easier to make this sort of trick.

hamsterwheel
03-04-2013, 18:18
I think you're referring to a 40k rule about the most direct way possible. In Fantasy, this is usually true because in order to maximize you normally have to take the most direct route possible. However, in this example, both of them being single models, he could just clip a corner with his daemon prince against the war machine and he's still maximizing.

dementian
03-04-2013, 19:27
As others have said looks ok but a little cheeky. And as hamsterwheel said according to the FAQ he can only overrun if he wipes the crew out in combat not if they break.

From Rulebook FAQ/ERRATA:

"Q:If a unit charges into combat and,on the turn it charges, the last
of the enemy unit it is fighting are removed as casualties due to
Daemonic Instability, the Unstable special rule, Cornered Rats or as
a result of a War Machine failing its Break test, does the charging
unit get to make an Overrun move? (p58)."
A: No.

PurpleSun
03-04-2013, 22:13
As others have said looks ok but a little cheeky. And as hamsterwheel said according to the FAQ he can only overrun if he wipes the crew out in combat not if they break.

From Rulebook FAQ/ERRATA:

"Q:If a unit charges into combat and,on the turn it charges, the last
of the enemy unit it is fighting are removed as casualties due to
Daemonic Instability, the Unstable special rule, Cornered Rats or as
a result of a War Machine failing its Break test, does the charging
unit get to make an Overrun move? (p58)."
A: No.

Trust me, his Daemon Prince of Nurgle had no trouble dispatching the crew of the Catapult!

Aside from that, I suppose the wound is just smarting, after being run over by a tactic I had not encounter before.

Piercefierce
03-04-2013, 23:29
There have been heaps of threads about this kind of stuff lately. This example doesn't seem cheesy to me. About the same as a normal re direct. Which as i have said before isnt very realistic but adds to the flavour of the game. If you want cheese go look at the fanatic slingshot, or the double eagle charge block. This one falls on your shoulders for giving him such easy overruns. Of course if you didn't know this could even happen I doubt you would have been thinking to avoid it lol.

In_Fiction
04-04-2013, 00:40
I honestly never really thought about this with warmachines (only played a few games of 8th so far) since the crew aren't really there like they used to be, so I'm glad I read this. Might save me some trouble in the future.

MLP
04-04-2013, 01:08
It doesn't seem to be illegal in anyway and to be honest I don't think it's cheese either. The daemon prince is an individual model so has 360 movement normally, I don't see why it wouldn't be able to overrun in this manner.

kramplarv
04-04-2013, 01:49
MLP: You have a correct answer. But I am intrigued of your reasoning of how to get that answer :)
What does individual model and 360 movement to do with an overrun?

Piercefierce
04-04-2013, 03:31
A model with that much freedom of movmrent would be able to set up over runs. I think that's what he is saying. Well that makes sense anyway. In his head the daemon is probably thinking if I come from this angle they are likely to retreat through their own comrades. Assuming you were after a bit of fluff.

























.

T10
04-04-2013, 07:57
Thought you had to move into combat by the most direct route possible?

In most circumstances the route selected isn't really that much of an issue: It is very likely that you only need to determine if the chargin unit is within range, pick it up from the table and place it in proper contact with the chargers. However, the player is free to go "Wooo hooo! MAN train!" and move his unit the maximum possible distance like it's a truck or something. The end result is the same, except one saves time and the other is sort of fun.

Against war machines, however, the end result is determined how you move. That's just the way it is, and being aware of this is the first step towards, well, not being surprised the next time.

MLP
04-04-2013, 10:11
MLP: You have a correct answer. But I am intrigued of your reasoning of how to get that answer :)
What does individual model and 360 movement to do with an overrun?


A model with that much freedom of movmrent would be able to set up over runs. I think that's what he is saying. Well that makes sense anyway. In his head the daemon is probably thinking if I come from this angle they are likely to retreat through their own comrades. Assuming you were after a bit of fluff.

This is pretty much it. As a models with 360 degree movement there's no reason it shouldn't be able to overrun into a enemy unit at an angle. I mean if it can see the other unit and it would normally be able to over run, then why wouldn't it over run?

It's different when its a ranked unit as the movement if more confined, but an individual unit like the daemon prince should certainly be able to do this.

Thinking about it, they should be able to do it for any unit, not just where there's a loophole with war machines.

Lord Solar Plexus
04-04-2013, 15:45
Can you tell me if this is illegal or just cheese?


It's absolutely illegal. That DP turns twice into different directions, first to get to his right, then to get back towards the WM. You're only allowed a single wheel of up to 90 degrees.

If he first veers to his right or left and does not go straight ahead, he will have to continue on that course and will probably miss the WM alltogether. He also cannot close any door. No base, no door.

SimaoSegunda
04-04-2013, 15:59
You get one wheel at the start, and one at the end. Not one half-way through the move. You don't charge in an arc, you wheel once, charge, and then close the door if required, but since you don't have to maximise contact against a war machine, you presumably wouldn't get the "closing the door" wheel at the end.

In short... it looks pretty illegal to me.

Lord Inquisitor
04-04-2013, 16:00
It's absolutely illegal. That DP turns twice into different directions, first to get to his right, then to get back towards the WM. You're only allowed a single wheel of up to 90 degrees.If he follows the path of the arrow it would be illegal but it looks to me that he would have been able to move straight ahead and then pivot at the very end to contact.

Mr_Rose
04-04-2013, 16:15
You get one wheel at the start, and one at the end. Not one half-way through the move. You don't charge in an arc, you wheel once, charge, and then close the door if required, but since you don't have to maximise contact against a war machine, you presumably wouldn't get the "closing the door" wheel at the end.

In short... it looks pretty illegal to me.

You get one wheel anywhere during the charge, plus the alignment wheel if necessary (it never is against war machines).
I still don't know where this "you can only wheel at the start" meme comes from, only that its not from the rulebook.

hamsterwheel
04-04-2013, 17:06
If he follows the path of the arrow it would be illegal but it looks to me that he would have been able to move straight ahead and then pivot at the very end to contact.

The description in the first post even indicates that he moved straight forward and then pivoted at the end. The picture is what is off.

Mid'ean
04-04-2013, 17:29
You get to wheel at any point in the charge. While the diagram doesn't show the tactic very well. As long as you follow the charge rules the tactic is legal.You can wheel up to 90d, no closing the door as already stated as a WM has no base to align to. So you can set up a perfect overrun into another target should you win combat. But I can see the OP's upsettness if he wasn't aware of the tactic. Was the same way when I did it in my gaming group. Took a little bit of discussion but in the end the rules were followed. Just came a nasty shock the first time....lol.

PurpleSun
04-04-2013, 17:30
The description in the first post even indicates that he moved straight forward and then pivoted at the end. The picture is what is off.

The arrow in the first picture shows the charge path. The arrow in the second picture was just drawn a little crooked. (Sorry!)

theunwantedbeing
04-04-2013, 18:05
You get to wheel at any point in the charge. While the diagram doesn't show the tactic very well. As long as you follow the charge rules the tactic is legal.You can wheel up to 90d, no closing the door as already stated as a WM has no base to align to. So you can set up a perfect overrun into another target should you win combat. But I can see the OP's upsettness if he wasn't aware of the tactic. Was the same way when I did it in my gaming group. Took a little bit of discussion but in the end the rules were followed. Just came a nasty shock the first time....lol.

In the previous edition there was no limit on how far that one wheel could be taken.
Infact, to maximise you very rarely had to pull off some really weird charges with single models who needed to charge past/away from the enemy to find the room to spin round and run back into them :p

Lord Inquisitor
04-04-2013, 18:21
In the previous edition there was no limit on how far that one wheel could be taken.

In the previous edition? Has 9th been released since I went to lunch? ;):p

SimaoSegunda
04-04-2013, 18:42
Yes, apologies, I was thrown by the picture. But it's not only the curve that threw me. The model didn't seem to be moving exactly the way it was facing, it looked like it veered off to one side slightly. My reading of the rules is that if you change your angle to anything other than straight ahead, even by a degree (exaggerating slightly, as you can't always be 100% accurate), then that counts as your wheel.

T10
04-04-2013, 19:58
[COLOR="#EE82EE"]In the previous edition? Has 9th been released since I went to lunch? ;):p[/COLOR

From the rest of the context of his post it is clear that theunwanted refers to the maximum wheel angle, not the wheel arc length. If you had sufficient charge Move you could spin around the wheel vertex as far as you'd like.

-T10

Kaiserdean
04-04-2013, 22:47
I think we all agree it's technically legal.

However I think it's cheese too; a single unit moving vertically to attack two units horizontally.

Lord Solar Plexus
05-04-2013, 07:41
If he follows the path of the arrow it would be illegal but it looks to me that he would have been able to move straight ahead and then pivot at the very end to contact.

Ah, I see. PurpleSun even points out that he's touching the WM with the corner. Yes, that's okay. I've seen people try this with hordes and wiggle, veer and slide them all over the place until it fits, which is rather iffy.



You can wheel up to 90d


Of course, although I don't think that is quite possible in this scenario. The charger would charge the WM with his flank or move over to the left or right as well.

10_minute_pie
05-04-2013, 19:39
You get one wheel at any point in your charge (the start, the end, the middle, whatever). Then, as long as you touch your enemy, you close the door to them (an additional wheel at the end to line up your units). As previously said, the final closing the door portion is never needed (thus never used) against a warmachine. As long as your opponent only made one wheel, and he wiped out the entire crew with attacks (keeping in mind he doesn't get to stomp), this is perfectly legal. Solution: next time deploy your warmachines further away from each other :)

SteveW
06-04-2013, 00:43
There is no rule that you have to move in by the most direct route. .

Except for the one that say "they move directly forward" making his charge illegal.

Mr_Rose
06-04-2013, 02:30
Do… do people even read threads any more?
This point has been raised and answered before. The issue is the second diagram, which amounts to an exaggeration for effect. The first one describes the direction of the charge accurately. That is, the charger did move directly forward until such a point that wheeling less than 90 would bring it into contact, at which time they did so and the charge was completed since you don't align with war machines.

Sotek
06-04-2013, 02:40
Legal, another reason fantasy sucks. It's all about the rules cheese.

decker_cky
06-04-2013, 02:41
Do… do people even read threads any more?
This point has been raised and answered before. The issue is the second diagram, which amounts to an exaggeration for effect. The first one describes the direction of the charge accurately. That is, the charger did move directly forward until such a point that wheeling less than 90 would bring it into contact, at which time they did so and the charge was completed since you don't align with war machines.

Correct. I'd like to add that it's not cheese - the exemption from closing the door with war machines can only be interpreted to allow for situations like this, so it's not some unintended loophole. Sucks the first time you face it, but you learn to deal with it.

Bitten Black Sheep
06-04-2013, 05:25
I still don't know where this "you can only wheel at the start" meme comes from, only that its not from the rulebook.

5th edition IIRC
LOL

SteveW
06-04-2013, 07:07
Do… do people even read threads any more?
This point has been raised and answered before. The issue is the second diagram, which amounts to an exaggeration for effect. The first one describes the direction of the charge accurately. That is, the charger did move directly forward until such a point that wheeling less than 90 would bring it into contact, at which time they did so and the charge was completed since you don't align with war machines.

Calm down kid, I read all that loaded when I clicked on the thread.

Azaireal
06-04-2013, 07:26
The DP wheels to make contact, and over half the DP flank is in the front of the war machine.

Does the war machine count as flanking the DP?

Dante blackfur
06-04-2013, 18:22
Legal, another reason fantasy sucks. It's all about the rules cheese.

The rules (mostly) arnt cheese it's the players that choose to exploit the more common then not loopholes in the rules. It's not just fantasy I've seen it in 40k warmahordes FoW ect. Granted fantasy might have easier loopholes to exploit but it's still the play that brings the cheese

PurpleSun
07-04-2013, 00:19
Correct. I'd like to add that it's not cheese - the exemption from closing the door with war machines can only be interpreted to allow for situations like this, so it's not some unintended loophole. Sucks the first time you face it, but you learn to deal with it.

I do not think the exemption from having to close the door was intended to allow this. The real reason, IMO, is that warmachines do not have bases for the most part and therefore do not have a straight edge to close the door on. So it was intended to avoid the "well how the heck do I close the door on this here ballista?" situation. It just so happens that it is exploitable, and hence the "Or just cheese?" part of the title to this thread.

greengiant
08-04-2013, 20:34
My question is...How can you wheel at the end of the charge to get the correct angle, when there its no base for the war machine to make 'official' contact?

Mr_Rose
08-04-2013, 20:38
Same way you make contact without wheeling; your base touches the war machine model (not any of the crew tokens).

b4z
08-04-2013, 21:06
Completely legal.

Just good knowledge of the rules.

Smart play which should be appreciated not bemoaned.

greengiant
08-04-2013, 21:08
So what happens if the Daemon player messed up the alignment when placing the model initially, and would miss the secondary target once he over runs... Should he be allowed to realign, even though he made it into base contact?

MLP
09-04-2013, 14:52
So we've come to the conclusion that it's technically legal. So how would you play this if the player has modelled his war machine on a base? In a friendly environment I imagine there'd be no issue, but in a competitive environment it could as the outcome could seriously affect the battle.

Also, in the OP example if the daemon prince charged from an angle directly opposite the overrun unit would this discussion still be the same? As the DP would still only be in contact with it's corner and able to overrun into the other unit.

Artinam
09-04-2013, 15:12
Ignoring the base would be the best option

Mid'ean
09-04-2013, 15:15
It wouldn't matter if he modeled it on a base, round, square or whatever. You ignore it for measurement purposes or any other purpose and follow the rules as stated on Pg#109. You measure to the warmachines body/chassis/wheels. Not crew..not powder keg or bucket or anything on the base. I like to put mine on nice 60mm round bases for scenic looks. But I always tell opponents that the base is there for looks and if he has a problem with it I direct them to said page and show him the rule for warmachines. Done deal!

Souppilgrim
09-04-2013, 21:36
It definitely feels gamey if you aren't expecting it. However if you reflect on the situation it feels a lot more thematically realistic. If the daemon prince is supposed to be fast (he is) and has the reach, why wouldn't he charge the other very close unit after nearly instantly smashing the first one? Is changing your trajectory a little bit really that hard for a mobile and powerful individual?

Iraf
09-04-2013, 21:48
It's fully allowed, and I don't see how it's cheese either. A player should be able to maneuver his units in the most opportunistic way. It's like trying to call a 'Knight' piece in Chess cheese because it doesn't go in a straight line.

PurpleSun
09-04-2013, 22:58
It's fully allowed, and I don't see how it's cheese either. A player should be able to maneuver his units in the most opportunistic way. It's like trying to call a 'Knight' piece in Chess cheese because it doesn't go in a straight line.

I call it cheese because it goes against the spirit of the rules, in my opinion. The rule appears to have been created to avoid arguments over how to line up against warmachines exactly because they do not have a base. I seriously doubt that the writers of the rules envisioned a unit/model charging straight forward, stopping 1 1/2" short, and executing a wheel to line up the overrun.

Cheese, by the slang definition, is a situation that is technically legal, but goes against the spirit of the rules. Hence, my very accurate title to this post "Illegal? Or just cheese?".

Iraf
09-04-2013, 23:06
I call it cheese because it goes against the spirit of the rules, in my opinion. The rule appears to have been created to avoid arguments over how to line up against warmachines exactly because they do not have a base. I seriously doubt that the writers of the rules envisioned a unit/model charging straight forward, stopping 1 1/2" short, and executing a wheel to line up the overrun.

Cheese, by the slang definition, is a situation that is technically legal, but goes against the spirit of the rules. Hence, my very accurate title to this post "Illegal? Or just cheese?".

Well, I find it legal and not cheese. Thus why I posted. As far as doubting that the writers envisions a unit/model charging straight forward and stopping 1.5" short and executing a wheel, that's a valid doubt. It's not a doubt I personally have though. Also, just naming a post "Illegal? Or just cheese?" doesn't make those the only 2 possibilities. At least not to me.

edit: Also, I find it to be in the spirit of the rules.

Chicago Slim
10-04-2013, 16:13
I call it cheese because it goes against the spirit of the rules, in my opinion.

Uhm, duly noted. As it turns out, I disagree with your opinion. More still, I think it's actually unfounded:




Yes, I'm with you on this part: in 8th edition, war machines do not have bases. Even war machines that are mounted on bases should *always* ignore those bases, for ALL game purposes: they exist only for the convenience of the unit's owner.

[quote] I seriously doubt that the writers of the rules envisioned a unit/model charging straight forward, stopping 1 1/2" short, and executing a wheel to line up the overrun.

Whether they envisioned such a situation or not, prior to releasing the rules, it is *quite* clear that, once specifically presented with the tactic, they fully endorsed it in the FAQ.

Now, whether or not the rules-writers intentions adequately define the "spirit of the game" (and thus define what is, or is not, cheesy) is a different question. Personally, I think that the spirit of the game is a consensual experience, developed by the player-base, which is why I want to convince you that your opinion is in error...

If we start from the principle that war machines, in the current edition, actually *do not have* bases in game-terms, does that help to make sense of this tactic?

Lord Inquisitor
10-04-2013, 18:26
I rather think that the rules for war machines were intended to deal with the situation of a model without a base rather than forcing all war machine owners to buy a base. I very much doubt that the rules removing the "closing the door" requirement were designed with the intent of setting up over-run corridors.

... But that's not to say that it's necessarily against the "spirit of the rules". Obviously not closing the door was done for practical reasons, but there's no reason to say that tactical wheels weren't considered and deemed a necessary evil or even an acceptable strategic side effect.

I think the best argument for "against the spirit of the rules" argument and the general feeling of it being "cheesy" is that if this were meant to be a tactical ploy, why not allow any unit charging any other unit to dictate their overrun corridors by tactical wheels? Why just war machines?

Glen_Savet
10-04-2013, 18:40
Redirecting is much the same, only the chargee decides which direction the charger gets to overrun. Is that "cheesy"?

Nomen Mendax
11-04-2013, 16:10
I rather think that the rules for war machines were intended to deal with the situation of a model without a base rather than forcing all war machine owners to buy a base. I very much doubt that the rules removing the "closing the door" requirement were designed with the intent of setting up over-run corridors.

... But that's not to say that it's necessarily against the "spirit of the rules". Obviously not closing the door was done for practical reasons, but there's no reason to say that tactical wheels weren't considered and deemed a necessary evil or even an acceptable strategic side effect.

I think the best argument for "against the spirit of the rules" argument and the general feeling of it being "cheesy" is that if this were meant to be a tactical ploy, why not allow any unit charging any other unit to dictate their overrun corridors by tactical wheels? Why just war machines?

Because when you charge a unit you intend to make contact with the entire first rank so it makes sense to line up with them. When you charge a war machine you intend to contact a single machine, its defenders then desperately try to stop you so (in theory) would be forced to line up with the attackers. Unfortunately this argument doesn't really hold because it would then make sense for single models (chariots, monsters etc.) to wheel to meet their attackers.

As to what GW's intent was -- who knows!?

Grimgormx
11-04-2013, 18:21
I say the movement is legal as it was described, no legal if the movement was like the graphics exposed

ARabidNun
11-04-2013, 18:22
Legal, another reason fantasy sucks. It's all about the rules cheese.

I agree to this to an extent. I have played fantasy for too many years and I conciously avoid tournaments because of players that use rules like this. Warhammer was created in a spirit of fair play and openness, but since players twist certain interpretations they had to reduce the amount of possible conflictions to keep people relatively happy. I do agree that this is legal, but the spirit of the game is abused when you point out that there is no base for war machines. Like infantry walk around with square boards glued to their feet. I would accept this during a game once it was explained to me and clarified within the rules, then I would tell that player to bugger off after the game.

gorblud
11-04-2013, 18:58
I don't see it as cheese at all, I do it every time

enyoss
12-04-2013, 00:11
Legal? Perhaps. Even so, it's more gamey than a pheasant and woodpigeon pie.

igortheugly
12-04-2013, 07:55
It's a good move I have used a few times but I always explain it to new club players before their training games though