|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 29, 2018 12:19:05 GMT
In this case, rather than using the normal rules for charging or marching, roll 2D6 and unless a double 1 is rolled then add this number to the Iron Daemon’s movement score for the total distance travelled. They are using the word score here and characteristic or movement value in other places which for me implies its the score - multiple values - (2D6 or actually swift strides best two of 3D6?) is added and the broilers for extra speed? This is worse then Skaven book... And regarding unintentionally. Have they not defined it in the text - (ie, not as the result of a declared charge). Well, it is true that GW should have created a more detailed register. That said, in the BRB we encounter on page 3: - Regarding WS: "The higher the score, the more likely the model is to hit an opponent in close combat." - Regarding Initiative: "Creatures with a low Initiative score (Orcs, with Initiative 2) are slow and cumbersome, while creatures with a high Initiative score (Elves, with Initiative 5) are quicker and more agile." So, in these examples regarding other characteristics, "score" is simply a synonym for "value." I would agree that "not as the result of a declared charge" is basically the definition of "unintentional." That is one of the reasons why I changed my initial position to include "marching." However, that does not negate the main rule which says that, if you intent to contact an enemy, you have to declare a charge. But, as I have said before, since it is a question of intent, only the controlling player knows. As such, it is more a question of fair play. Ruleswise, it is allowed.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Jul 30, 2018 8:17:59 GMT
I would agree that "not as the result of a declared charge" is basically the definition of "unintentional." That is one of the reasons why I changed my initial position to include "marching." However, that does not negate the main rule which says that, if you intent to contact an enemy, you have to declare a charge. But, as I have said before, since it is a question of intent, only the controlling player knows. As such, it is more a question of fair play. Ruleswise, it is allowed. This is why I’ve changed the main post to talk about both scenarios and argue that with regards to the charge move, if there is a possibility of the move contacting a unit (say if a unit is within 18”), then you should probably play it as ‘intentional’ and so you would not get impact hits. However played this way, does mean you wouldn’t get the amusing self inflicted hits if that unit were friendly.
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Jul 30, 2018 9:34:26 GMT
Well I just just find that more confusing as they defined unintentional as everything that is not a declared charge. Easy to play and the unit is far away from coming close to anything broken.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Mar 5, 2019 16:26:18 GMT
One of the major drawbacks with the model is, after the initial turn of impact hits, you rely on your thunderstomp for damage and so against anything bigger than infantry, you won’t get this and so will likely struggle to cause any damage. With unbreakable and the high wounds/toughness of the unit, they may find it difficult to kill you but it will effectively be tarpitted. Setting up a charge really needs it to work in conjunction with at least one other unit (Preferably a nice large Infernal Guard with a Castellan) so the target unit can be held in place while the Iron daemon charges at a flank. I feel that this is where Forge World dropped the ball a bit. The iron daemon should have a grinding attack like the Steam Tank instead of Thunderstomps. Not being able to damage anything outside of Swarms, Infantry and Warbeasts once locked in combat makes no sense. Relying on nothing but the 3 crew attacks is silly.
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Mar 6, 2019 10:23:17 GMT
Surely if you just directly March into the enemy without some complexity intervening in the whole charge/movement sub-phases, then that is obviously intentional. It is a matter of fair play as FvonSigmaringen mentions.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Mar 6, 2019 16:31:53 GMT
Surely if you just directly March into the enemy without some complexity intervening in the whole charge/movement sub-phases, then that is obviously intentional. It is a matter of fair play as FvonSigmaringen mentions. This rule is anything but clear, however... For me the key line is: "If the total movement would bring the Iron Daemon into contact with a unit unintentionally (ie. not as the result of a declared charge), roll for impact hits as normal." [emphasis mine] It is the word unintentional that is giving us problems, but they have defined it to include coming into contact with the enemy not as the result of a declared charge. Since we can't ascertain the intentions of the player, this is as good of a definition as any in my books. Forge World obviously went to a great deal of trouble detailing not only that the ID can move into combat without declaring a charge, but also detailing the penalties that are incurred. This interpretation does unfortunately allow a person to deliberately avoid granting the opponent the opportunity to declare a charge reaction (at the cost of granting the opponent ASF and giving up the +1 to combat resolution for charging). However, the opposite interpretation is also riddled with problems. What happens if a person genuinely unintentionally made it into combat without declaring a charge (due to misjudging the distance or just barely clipping the unit when it was thought that the ID would pass by)? Since we can't apply a rule that relies on identification of player intent, I just don't think it is viable.
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Mar 6, 2019 16:41:24 GMT
Maybe not in a court of law, but I think judging someone's intentions with regards to this is fairly straightforward and it would not be in the spirit of fair play whilst also not being really within the rules.
Definition of Unintentional: Not on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Mar 7, 2019 2:52:26 GMT
Maybe not in a court of law, but I think judging someone's intentions with regards to this is fairly straightforward and it would not be in the spirit of fair play whilst also not being really within the rules. Definition of Unintentional: Not on purpose. If you are playing in a friendly environment with people you trust then it is pretty straight forward. If someone you don't really know is playing CD against you, its a pretty tough telling that someone what their intention was. That is a massive argument waiting to happen. In that situation it is anything but straight forward. There are two situations where I think someone could deliberately misuse this rule (if they chose to)... - to avoid a charge reaction of stand and shoot
- to avoid a charge reaction of flee
Obviously, if the player thought their opponent was certain to hold, it would make more sense to declare the charge normally and not concede the ASF to your opponent (and keep the +1 combat resolution for charging). So it is in those two situations above where things get a little bit dicey. However, ascertaining whether or not it was a person's intention to take advantage of those situations is difficult. For instance... Let's say the Chaos Dwarf player wanted to get out of a charge arc and their normal movement of 6 would not be enough to get them out of the arc. Let's also assume that in the path of the ID there is some chaff unit, 10" away. If the Chaos Dwarf player marches ahead, it is likely that he will reach the unit (M6 + 2d6, on average that is 13"). If the Chaos Dwarf player declares a charge and the unit opts to flee, then they will likely get away and the ID will only move forward 2d6 (as the rules for an ID failed charge state "simply move the Iron Daemon forward the rolled distance instead"). Well that 2d6 movement gives you a much less chance of getting out of the enemy charge arc than M6 + 2d6. In this case marching forward is the proper way for the player to proceed, even though it is highly likely that they will make contact with the enemy. It doesn't even have to be for the reason of getting out of a charge arc. Maybe the opponent just wants to get their ID somewhere on the board as fast as possible. In such a case, a chaff unit like an Eagle could always fly into a position where it is likely that the ID would make the charge if he held, but fail the charge if he fled; effectively reducing the top speed of the ID to 2d6 rather than M6 + 2d6. I just don't think their is an elegant solution to this, but I don't like the idea of interpreting a rule based on what we feel the other person's intention was. It will work with some people that you absolutely trust, but in other instances it is a recipe for disaster. So how would you propose that the rule be resolved?
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Mar 10, 2019 22:27:34 GMT
I've come across another instance where the ID march vs. charge issue becomes a bit more tricky. In the CD FAQ the following question appears (I have highlighted the relevant section):
Q. Since the Iron Daemon cannot wheel or turn during a charge, does this mean that when it contacts a unit it does not 'close the door'and the charged unit 'closes the door' instead?
A. If an Iron Daemon makes contact with an enemy unit then the normal rules apply for combats and the Iron Daemon is allowed to 'close the door'. This is the only time that the model is allowed to wheel. When charging the Iron Daemon must make contact with the facing of the charged unit that it started in, otherwise it counts as a failed charge.
So this brings up a rare scenario where you could easily be in charge range (even guaranteed charge range, equal to or less than 8") and still be completely unable to successfully charge the unit. For any normal unit this scenario doesn't exist because they can wheel during the charge movement.
How would everyone proceed in this scenario? Is it unfair to make a march move and end up in say the flank of an enemy when you were in their frontal zone? Or is more unfair that the Iron Daemon's movement can be so utterly crippled in such a scenario?
If allowed to march into combat, a savvy CD player could catch a flank with a march when starting in the frontal zone (and would end up giving up the charge bonus and ASF to the enemy in exchange for a flank bonus and fewer attacks coming back). On the other hand, if the rule is played that you can't march into combat, a savvy opponent could position his unit in such a way that the CD player could not charge or march.
If one does not allow a march to make it into close combat, then the 285+ point ID is awfully tricky to get into combat (against a skill player). The opponent could easily move right into a guaranteed charge range and angle their unit in such a way that the ID could never make it into combat. With a chaff unit you could effectively completely freeze the ID in place... unless the march into combat is permitted.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Mar 12, 2019 16:33:45 GMT
I have hard to think that anyone playing or purchased the model ever played in an other way then that the definition of unintentionally is what written in the rules. That is everything that is not a charge.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Mar 12, 2019 20:00:22 GMT
I have hard to think that anyone playing or purchased the model ever played in an other way then that the definition of unintentionally is what written in the rules. That is everything that is not a charge. So you would argue that the CD player can choose to march the ID into the opponent at the cost of the penalties outlined in the book (no charge bonus, ASF to the opponent)? The more and more that I think about, the more seems like the above is the intended interpretation of the rules. Plus the potential usage of such an expensive unit becomes very questionable under any other interpretation. Also, they provided a great deal detail to outline how a march into combat works.
|
|