|
|
Post by magicjuggler on Feb 21, 2018 18:38:01 GMT
I've (through the warhammer.org 8.5 project) come across a scenario that apparently seems to be controversial, the "skirmish contraction." I want to know your thoughts and if it's a legit trick or gaming the system.
When a unit charges, it must move straightforward but is allowed a single turn of up to 90 degrees. It cannot charge if there are any intervening enemy units.
Let us suppose I have a unit of Skirmishers...let's say Skinks. The Skinks face at a 45-degree angle to a block of infantry, and only one or two of the Skinks are in the front arc of the infantry unit.
Because the Skinks are in front, they would block the infantry unit from attempting to charge another unit. However, if the unit attempts to charge the Skinks, the Skinks could Stand and Shoot upon which they immediately contract, are no longer in the front arc of the infantry unit, and no longer are an eligible charge target. RAW redirection can only happen versus a Flee! reaction and so the infantry unit can only move forward D6 inches.
Is this legit, or is this a bug?
|
|
|
|
Post by gjnoronh on Feb 21, 2018 20:56:34 GMT
Skirmish contraction can cause problems by chargers but I don't think it usually will in the situation you describe.
Being in the front arc is required to declare a charge not to complete a charge. As long as they were a legal charge target when declared they should be okay.
As the charger you still get your up to a 90 degree wheel even if that means you contact outside of your front arc. In the situation you describe that will almost always allow them to make contact. I guess it's theoretically possible that the contraction takes them completely out of range of the 90 degree wheel. I can't recall it happening but get close enough to a big long line of skirmishers and it's possible I guess. In that case I'd call it a bit beardy (if someone worked to set that up as a block) but by RAW allowed.
The more common issue is because of the skirmishing contraction a unit that was chained across a large section of the board now is quite compact. The distance to complete the charge becomes many more inches then it was when it was declared - don't roll high enough and you can't reach.
|
|
|
|
Post by gregwarhamsters on Feb 21, 2018 21:14:50 GMT
Very interesting topic, something I'll ask the group next gaming night.
Greg
|
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Feb 21, 2018 21:59:17 GMT
Do you measure closest points before or after skirmishers contracts? As you have unlimited reach after as long as you only do max 90deg wheel.
And do skirmishers contract if you don't reach them?
|
|
|
|
Post by magicjuggler on Feb 21, 2018 22:24:53 GMT
RAW, the rules state that the Skirmishers contract "immediately" after declaring a charge or a non-Flee! reaction, and the contraction happens before you roll for charge distance.
The controlling player must disperse the Skirmishers in the Remaining Moves subphase if they are not in base contact with an enemy unit then. I would need to double-check the FAQs to confirm whether Skirmishers disperse again during the opponent's remaining moves subphase.
|
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Feb 22, 2018 0:14:02 GMT
Yes, that is indeed RAW. I pointed it out years ago in various forums. It's a rule I only use abusively against deathstars... which I find equally abusive.
It's a wonderful example of how GW haphazardly writes and playtests rules. A simple rules change - the contraction occurs upon contact between units rather than upon declaring the charge, and centers around the point of contact - fixes it nicely. But GW apparently didn't test the game to destruction like your average wargamer is apt to.
The really fun rule problem is with fleeing units becoming invulnerable. The rules say to complete a legal charge, you must contact the 'proper' facing of the charged unit. This facing is determined at the moment the charge is declared. The problem is, when a unit flees it usually turns that facing to a location impossible to reach with one 90 degree pivot... and no exception is made for completing the charge against a fleeing unit.
I'd never play it that way, but it's technically RAW.
|
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Feb 25, 2018 1:37:03 GMT
The really fun rule problem is with fleeing units becoming invulnerable. The rules say to complete a legal charge, you must contact the 'proper' facing of the charged unit. This facing is determined at the moment the charge is declared. The problem is, when a unit flees it usually turns that facing to a location impossible to reach with one 90 degree pivot... and no exception is made for completing the charge against a fleeing unit. I'd never play it that way, but it's technically RAW. This is not true. Both on pages 17 and 23 it states exactly what happens when a fleeing unit is caught. They are run down and removed as a casualty. There rule you are misquoting is about flank/rear vs. front/flank charges when a hold reaction is declared. |
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Feb 25, 2018 1:57:59 GMT
Except the rules say you have to make legal contact to complete a charge, and to make legal contact you have to contact the designated facing. Nowhere in the rules is there an exception for a fleeing unit.
It's the RAW vs. RAI argument. We all know what they meant, and we all play it the way they meant it. But that's not the way they wrote the rules...
|
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Feb 25, 2018 3:22:19 GMT
Except the rules say you have to make legal contact to complete a charge, and to make legal contact you have to contact the designated facing. Nowhere in the rules is there an exception for a fleeing unit. It's the RAW vs. RAI argument. We all know what they meant, and we all play it the way they meant it. But that's not the way they wrote the rules... Not true. The charge rules on the pages I reference point out a specific exception by word and action. This is not even close to a RAW vs. RAI situation. |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Feb 25, 2018 17:45:58 GMT
BRB p. 23: If, for whatever reason, a unit completes a charge against a fleeing enemy, move the charging unit(s) into contact with the fleeing enemy as described earlier and then the fleeing unit is run down by the chargers.
This refers to the way in which a charging unit is moved on BRB p. 20:
"That said, the charge move is subject to an important restriction: the unit must move straight ahead, except that, during this move, it may make a single wheel of up to 90°. You are free to make this wheel in order to place your unit wherever you like against the facing of the enemy unit that is being charged, but remember that you must bring as many models into base contact with the enemy as possible, from both sides!"
"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."
[Italics mine]
|
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Feb 25, 2018 21:05:20 GMT
You missed the first part of the rules on p. 20 that state:
"If your charge range was sufficient, it's time to complete the charge and move into base contact with the enemy."
This now becomes a sequence issue as p.23 says that when a unit complete a charge to move into base contact and remove the enemy unit. It does not state move into contact with a particular facing. The top of 21 only says moving into base contact completes the charge, then after that goes into how the Wheeling needs to work.
I took it, RAW, that once contact was made the rest did not matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Feb 25, 2018 21:15:19 GMT
Well, that obviously cannot be it, because the rule says: move the charging unit(s) into contact with the fleeing enemy as described earlier." You would be correct, if "as described earlier" had been omitted. That said, everyone will agree that this is simply an oversight. I am no fan of RAI, but as I have stated multiple times before, there is one intent everyone can agree on: a rule must be playable. If a rrule as written cannot be played, then there is something wrong. In thia case, adhering to the facing requirement means that a rule is not playable. Therefore, one should ignore this requirement.
|
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Feb 25, 2018 21:33:48 GMT
Fair enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Feb 26, 2018 0:33:11 GMT
Agreed.
And ultimately, my point was not that rule in particular, but to point out another instance of GW's lack of quality proofreading and playtesting in their rules writing.
|
|
