|
Post by midnightfox0083 on May 8, 2020 16:22:07 GMT
I've only ever seen it played the way the pictures present.
|
|
|
Post by saniles on May 8, 2020 23:22:53 GMT
While a bit gamey, I don’t see any issue with the way the pictures suggest. Random movement presents benefits and challenges. There is not requirement to force a random movement to be a front charge or a flank. It’s exactly as it says. In theory, I could be aiming to do a 1” away march block type tactic with the random mover (although I’m not sure why you would) and end up clipping the enemy unit in doing it. It ends up in the same situation as is being presented.
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on May 9, 2020 5:38:58 GMT
Think we play as Fidelis pictures too. I have an other question.
What part of the 1” rule takes precedence?
Move charges:
“It’s important to note that a unit can move to within 1" of another unit when charging – not just the one that it is charging – this is the only time that this is normally allowed.”
Random Movement:
“If the random move brings the unit to within 1" of a friendly unit or impassable terrain, it stops immediately and cannot move further during that Movement phase.”
I would guess the second as it’s a special rule, which would imply that random movement needs some extra space and can’t be done in tight places even when resolving a charge?
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on May 9, 2020 9:37:43 GMT
This may come as a surprise, but we play it like that too... strutsagget : The rules for resolving a charge take precedence. That is exactly why you need to measure the distance, before actually moving the model. If that distance would bring you into contact with an enemy unit, then the rules for resolving a charge apply - including the exemption of the 1" apart rule. If not, the other rule applies. Remember that normal units cannot come into contact with an enemy unit, unless they have declared a charge against it. However, the Random Movement version of the 1" apart rule does not include enemy units, precisely because they cannot declare charges. If "enemy unit" was included here, a Random Mover would never be able to come in contact with an enemy. Note that this particular exemption also limits the effect of "pivot blocking." On a side note: I always found it funny how players who were very liberal with waving the magic RAI wand, could be at the same time very anal about implementing the 1" apart rule. This rule is one of the few instances, where the intent is actually specified in writing (BRB p. 13): "This rule is purely for clarity. It's important to be able to tell at a glance where one unit stops and another begins." Purely for clarity, not to be exploited as a tactical ploy to block movement which would otherwise be perfectly possible.
|
|
g2000
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by g2000 on May 19, 2020 3:44:50 GMT
I’ve come up against a number of steam tanks. Do they even charge? Their rules are quite broken (thank you, Matt ward). We’re they a bump towards the end of 8th?
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on May 19, 2020 5:44:09 GMT
I’ve come up against a number of steam tanks. Do they even charge? Their rules are quite broken (thank you, Matt ward). We’re they a bump towards the end of 8th? I don’t even think Matt Ward wrote any rules or balance points at all, think he only wrote fluff and background.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on May 19, 2020 7:14:51 GMT
g2000: Steam Tank cannot declare charges, but can charge. I refer to my earlier answer in this thread: Random Movement is often misunderstood. BRB p. 21: "A charging unit's position when the charge is declared determines whether it charges into the front, flank or rear of the enemy unit." However, a Random Mover does not declare charges. The sequence (BRB p. 74) is: 1. Pivot the centre of the Random Mover to face the direction in which you wish it to travel. 2. Roll the dice shown in the model's profile. 3. Measure the distance in a straight line to see whether you come into contact with an enemy. It is important to note that this happens, before the model is actually moved, as it will determine whether the 1" rule applies or not. 3.a If the move is found to take the unit into contact with an enemy this counts as charging, and this is resolved using the normal rules for charges and using the distance rolled as its charge range, i.e. move the charging unit in a straight line with one free wheel of 90° to get into contact with the enemy, and then either you or the enemy closes the door. During this charge, you can also move to within 1" of other units, or impassable terrain. Of course, you need to close the door with the facing of the enemy determined by the measurement in a straight line. If that is, for some reason, impossible, it will result in a failed charge. 3.b If no charge is made, move the model directly forwards a number of inches equal to the total rolled by the dice. If the random move brings the unit to within 1" of a friendly unit or impassable terrain, it stops immediately and cannot move further during that Movement phase. Regarding your second question: yes. SP are generated at the start of your turn and units that enter the battle are moved in the Remaining Moves sub-phase. Empire AB p. 51: "At the start of your turn, declare how many Steam Points the Steam Tank is generating." They were not a late bump, but already included in the Empire AB, which was published midway the 8th edition in 2012. And as strutsagget indicates, not Matt Ward, but Robert Cruddace wrote the Empire AB.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on May 19, 2020 8:03:58 GMT
To add: the Steam Tank is powerful, but hardly broken. It has a bit more control over its Movement, but it is still random. It is vulnerable to anything that does not allow armour saves. In CC, the Steam Tank has a single S3 Attack, plus the use of its S2-4 Breath Weapon. When in btb with an enemy, it can also grind in the Movement phase, inflicting 1-3D3 S6 attacks (which do not count towards CR). With steadfast and, if necessary, General/BSB support, large but cheap units (for instance, Skaven Slaves or Zombies) could easily tie it up in CC for most of the game.
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on May 19, 2020 9:13:20 GMT
Think you also need to separate ”wrote” the army book. Think the author of the book more or less just wrote the fluff/fantasy/background part of them(major texts). Rules parts and points were made by a GW team if I remember it correctly from interviews.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on May 19, 2020 12:16:24 GMT
It is a bit off-topic, but I am not sure that such a stark distinction can really be made. In the first Army Books, the colophon contained the following entry: - Games Development: Robin Cruddace, Matthew Hobday, Jervis Johnson, Phil Kelly, Mark Latham, Adam Troke, Jeremy Vetock, Sarah Wallen, Matthew Ward
Presumably, this is the "rules team," and, as one can see, it includes the official writers of the various ABs. Of course, we do not know how much each of that "rules team" was involved in the nitty-gritty of a specific AB, but we do know that e.g. Jervis Johnson, the writer of the OKAB, was directly involved in the writing of specific rules of the OKAB. In any case, the official writer(s) still had overall responsibility.Note that, starting with the WoCAB, the colophon entry above was replaced by: - Produced by the Games Workshop Design Studio
Additional Playtesting: Ben Curry , Adam Hall, Ben Johnson , Greg Milne, Martin Morrin, Chris Taylor
with the DAB having a slightly different list. Here it is no longer spelled out who the "rules team" consisted of, but there can be little doubt that the official AB writers still took part.
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on May 19, 2020 12:18:16 GMT
Well we have interviews with Matt Ward saying he only wrote fluff and GW had full team for the rest.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on May 19, 2020 12:26:52 GMT
Fine with me. Next time anyone referring to Matt Ward to settle a rules question can be answered: he only wrote fluff.
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on May 19, 2020 14:18:47 GMT
Fine with me. Next time anyone referring to Matt Ward to settle a rules question can be answered: he only wrote fluff. Or when relistening the interview they used to be bigger teams that did all together(6ed army book woodies) but ended up being more specialized in later books(only stories in end times).
|
|
hebi
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by hebi on Jun 30, 2020 12:07:41 GMT
Thank you for your very detailed explanation. That is exactly what I had in mind. I was never tournament player but every player I asked and on every forum I asked about this subject people where split 50/50. I think pic 4 is very controversial move and I understand why but after your 8000+ words and seeing some of battle reports (I can't recommend enough OnceBitten360 on youtube) I think you are right and that is legal movie. Very often It was hard for me to charge with ST do to other units charging before ST and maximizing fighting models. That clarification will help me a lot.
Thank you once more.
|
|
pete
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by pete on Jan 5, 2022 16:42:53 GMT
Hi, Not sure if I can wake this thread, however, I think the consensus on this is wrong. Although it says, “A charging unit’s position when the charge is declared determines whether it charges into the front, flank or rear…” it also says in the next paragraph, “Whether the charger is in the front, flank or rear…is determined before the charges are declared.” It doesn’t matter when (or whether, even) charges are declared, your zone is already determined. Let me know what you think. Cheers Pete
|
|