|
|
Post by DiscoQing on Aug 18, 2021 23:13:29 GMT
Hey a technical question here...
Random movers ignore the 1" rule.
If someone is trying to "railroad" my Abomb, say 5 Reavers 1" away from the
Abombs flank -
Can I charge them?
I've tried to make this as dumb a question as possible, in order to try and get as all encompassing answer as possible - lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 19, 2021 7:36:27 GMT
Well, they ignore the 1" rule in the case of enemy units and when charging. In most cases, the manoeuvre you envisage will result in a failed charge, because you will not be able to close the door in such a way that your front hits the facing of the enemy unit that has been charged - you cannot charge sideways.
|
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on Aug 19, 2021 9:49:59 GMT
Well, they ignore the 1" rule in the case of enemy units and when charging. In most cases, the manoeuvre you envisage will result in a failed charge, because you will not be able to close the door in such a way that your front hits the facing of the enemy unit that has been charged - you cannot charge sideways. Hey - yeah, I was looking for the specific wording where it says a charge has to be the front. I couldn't find it. Random movers don't charge per se, they just move, make contact, then close the door. But I can't see where the front is specifically mentioned. My friend is the one making the case for this, I just want to go back to him with a reasoned response as to why he can't!... Or can! Lol |
|
|
|
Post by anechrome on Aug 19, 2021 10:31:18 GMT
The random mover can't charge the because it has to pivot before it actally moves it's random movement distance and you can't pivot it within an inch of the reavers.
With that said, I think one of the bigger tournaments, perhaps the ETC, made some changes to that rule that allows you to pivot into contact and call it a charge. I think it's outlined in the battlebible if memory serves and that may be where your opponent is coming from. Railroading may be a part of the rules, but it can be freakingly annoying so to keep things fun (especially when dealing with steamtanks and HPA) you may want to consider adapting that houserule.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 19, 2021 11:38:58 GMT
@discoqing: You do not have to charge the front - but your front must be brought into flush contact with the facing of the enemy you came into contact with, and you have only the one wheel (closing the door) to do that. I will try to come up with a picture, if that is unclear. anechrome: Yes, a random mover can pivot within 1". For one: "This rule is purely for clarity" (BRB p. 10) - it is not to impede movement that would otherwise be possible. Secondly, Random Movement is governed by its own 1" rule, where enemy units are conspicuously missing (BRB p. 74): "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." |
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on Aug 19, 2021 12:24:31 GMT
@discoqing: You do not have to charge the front - but your front must be brought into flush contact with the facing of the enemy you came into contact with, and you have only the one wheel (closing the door) to do that. I will try to come up with a picture, if that is unclear Sorry, I think I wasn't clear. Where does it say that the charger has to charge with its front? Normal units need line of sight, so ignoring that, as random movers don't need that - simply making base contact is the "charge", then it's a matter for closing the door. Is closing the door possible at all when the situation could be the 2 units are in each other's flanks? This all sounds ludicrous 😂😂 |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 19, 2021 13:56:32 GMT
BRB p. 74 (Random Movement): "If the move is found to take the unit into contact with an enemy, then it counts as charging, and this is resolved using the normal rules for charges and using the distance rolled as its charge range."
One of the normal rules for charging is this:
BRB p. 20: "Once the charging unit contacts the enemy unit, it must perform a second, bonus wheel if required to bring its front facing into flush contact with the facing of the enemy unit that has been charged, maximising the number of models in base contact on both sides. We refer to this as 'closing the door'."
[Italics mine]
And that is not possible if the two units are flank to flank. Hence, a failed charge. At least, that allows the random mover to stay put, rather than being railroaded off the board.
|
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on Aug 19, 2021 14:18:37 GMT
Thanks FvonSigmaringen - looking at the text though "front facing" is in italics, so you wrote that bit?
Does that mean there is no wording for a charge having to be in the front?
This would obviously only effect Random movers as normal charges require Los, and move forward.
I'm not trying to be awkward, I'm just trying to gather as much info as possible to placate all imagined responses.
I guess a "back to basics" explanation as to what closing the door is, and why a random mover cannot charge/close the door when 1" away...
And what would happen when the random mover pivots in to base contact and then it isn't a charge, can it continue to move passed the unit?
Or it is a failed charge and moves back 1" anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by padre on Aug 19, 2021 14:33:00 GMT
'Italics mine' means words were not italicised in the original text, not that they weren't in the original text.
Italicising them is only meant to draw attention to them in the context of the argument they are being quoted to support.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 19, 2021 14:33:51 GMT
No, the text is obviously original, but it was not in Italics. I put it in Italics to highlight the important bits. Sometimes GW uses bold or Italic script, also to highlight specific parts of a rule. If one quotes something and changes the quote in any way, one should make that clear. Hence [ Italics mine]. Or: what padre said. It is a failed charge and it stops 1" away. It is probably not 100% clear-cut, but it is the way closest to harmonizing everything. |
|
|
|
Post by padre on Aug 19, 2021 14:36:58 GMT
Ha! I beat you to the answer by a minute. And on my phone too. That's a personal best for me!
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 19, 2021 14:40:29 GMT
Well done! Have a beer on Midaski's tap.  |
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on Aug 19, 2021 14:49:03 GMT
No, the text is obviously original, but it was not in Italics. I put it in Italics to highlight the important bits. Sometimes GW uses bold or Italic script, also to highlight specific parts of a rule. If one quotes something and changes the quote in any way, one should make that clear. Hence [ Italics mine]. Or: what padre said. It is a failed charge and it stops 1" away. It is probably not 100% clear-cut, but it is the way closest to harmonizing everything. Ah yes I see it now - thanks! That's just what I need. So, *if* the random mover pivots without touching the enemy base (0.001mm away!) they're not in base contact, and can move in that direction as normal? |
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on Aug 19, 2021 15:35:34 GMT
And here's a scenario my friend came up with: 1" away  Pivots  The beast closes the door  Or the enemy closes the door  Is this possible? |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 19, 2021 16:05:44 GMT
In my book, that is a perfectly legal charge (well, perhaps not perfectly). However, the beast must close the door, since there are no obstacles preventing him to do so.
Strictly speaking, the pivot itself should not yet bring the beast into btb, since you first pivot, roll the dice, and then measure whether an enemy unit will be contacted, before moving the random mover. In this case, it is, of course, rather obvious.
On a side note: there are many players who are very liberal with RAI>RAW (and where the alleged intent ran clearly counter to the wording of the rules), but quite anal (to keep with the Freudian theme) about the 1" rule, one of the few rules where the intent is explicitly stated: "This rule is purely for clarity. It's important to be able to tell at a glance where one unit stops and another begins (BRB p. 13)."
|
|
