|
Post by carl on Feb 24, 2010 17:57:56 GMT
guys, apologies for getting arguementative last night. wont happen again as i wont be 'standing in' again.
however, let me clarify why i did;
1. i was standing in for Colin and as such wanted to ensure i got a many points for him as possible, within legal peramiters of course.
2. when i charged into the side and rear of Warrens unit my units ended up in 'contact' with only 6 of his. 3 on the side and 3 on the rear, or 4 on the rear and 2 on the side, his choice when it came to deciding on who fought whom. i killed 4 of these and expected to only get 2 'hits' back, but according to both Steve and Warren he was allowed 5 or 6 (cant remember which) attacks as 3 or 4 from the second row back from the rear could also fight as well.
THIS IS INCORRECT!
if you look at page 20 of the rulebook at the section headed Turning Models it explains that ONLY models touching other models when charged in the flank or rear can 'turn' and fight. No others are allowed to fight back. As the other models were not in contact at neither the start of the combat round, or after i had attacked and killed some, then the other attacks should not have been permitted back, only the 2 models left alive out of the original 6 who were in base to base contact.
this is also borne out by the fact that as this 'lone' man would have prevented my WHOLE unit moving up into the back of the next rank, i could only attack in the next round of combat with 3 of my unit as they would be the only models in base to base with Warrens last man in his back 'rank'.
this is also confirmed in the hand to hand combat section as well under the heading 'Which models fight'.
hope this clears it up, and once again apologies, but Steve and Warren got this wrong! Potentially if Warren had caused enough casualties on me, and even though i was in the flank and rear he could have used Oracle points to actually 'win' combat and make my units potentially flee, which would have been unfair on Colins points balance.
this needs to be remembered in future combat rounds as this may cause wrong conclusions to combat, and change the shape of games.
|
|
darkangel1(Darrell)
Gates of Antares
Master of the Ravenwing
The Dark Angels the First Legion the true Angels of Death
Posts: 1,060
|
Post by darkangel1(Darrell) on Feb 24, 2010 19:21:51 GMT
good of you to apologise carl nice to see. hopeully in the future anyone who has a disbute about a rules issue it may be a better idear to simply roll a d6 and just get on with it. once again well done darrell
|
|
|
Post by Andy"windy"Miller on Feb 24, 2010 21:39:51 GMT
Tricky one this! I can see both sides of the picture and did have a similar situation in one of my games. The WAB book is not very clear on this and there are no specific rules shown or listed for this situation. There is a section in the Fantasy rules (p36) which does show rear chargers "pushing all the way in", but this is the fantasy book! This section does not appear in WAB. You could argue it's all Warhammer, alternatively that it's not in the WAB book, so it's not a rule. Personally I'm with Darrell D6 and post it on the Warhammer forum for clarification later, but what do i know I'm new to this ;D
Interestingly there are some odd posibilities that spring from this and I'd need to draw pictures to get the point over, but try this one. A unit 5 figures wide charges the rear of another 5 fig wide unit, which has 1 fig in the rear rank dead centre. Ignoring any other combats to front or flank and assuming same sized bases. If the charge stops on the rear guy the attacker gets 3 attacks to 1. If they push all the way in it could be 5 attacks to 5, however if actualy moved in, there are now 2 extra figures that are in base contact with the rear guy that are on the diagonals, from the second rank of the attackers. Do these fight making it 7 attacks to 5? If you then bring in that this guy has moved to one side to counter a flank charge (also a rule not in the WAB book). This is changed again to a 6 to 5 advantage, messy, messy, messy.
Andy
|
|
|
Post by Simon Robinson on Feb 24, 2010 22:09:57 GMT
The question is on the WAB forum, the response will be interesting. As you so rightly say Andy -messy, messy, messy.
Just to add to the mess (well, why not) if the enemy were 5 models wide with a rear rank of 1 model and the attackers were in skirmish order you would automatically be able to position the chargers to give you maximum attacks - and hence vunerability to maximum retaliation OR you could decide just to pick on the bloke on his own and have a much lower chance of taking casulaties in return
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Feb 24, 2010 22:44:59 GMT
Well that's interesting, and I can only apologise for giving you the wrong ruling, I was obviously remembering the Warhammer rule on partial ranks and thinking it was also in the WAB rules.
Something to remember.
|
|
|
Post by carl on Feb 24, 2010 22:47:35 GMT
the difference is on the turn you charge in WAB with Pilums they ALL get to throw instead of hand to hand actual fighting and if you kill more than one then they die, the same goes for normal fighting as its a rear charge and the charger gets the bonus for this as he has managed to charge the back of the unit. the one model in the rear rank rule ONLY comes into play from round 2 of combat.
also, if you charge a full rank unit in the back and you kill all the back rank as a minimum at least then your opponent does not get to fight back at all.
as i said, the book clearly says (in two different sections) ONLY models in the CHARGED unit that are touching models in the unit that charged them can turn and fight back, if still alive of course once they have been attacked by the chargers.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Feb 24, 2010 23:46:22 GMT
That was me asking over at the WAB site - just to make sure before I roll over and say "soz mate!" Apparently this works in WFB but not in WAB so I owe you an apology - anyway they were stubborn and were going to stay there - no point in wasting oracles. However, that's not the point and I hold my hand up. Just one thing if one of your guys was not in contact then they couldn't use the pilum. But now you are saying that if you attacked six wide getting two ranks to pile in on just one defender in the back round you would get thirteen attacks on my one guy? I don't see how that is fair at all. So we must remember this in the future from now that even if the defender has only one man in the back rank the attacker on the charge can have all the attacks in the front and second row if with pila (though it would be handy to have a page number where this is stated in the book as I can't find it). If I was Roman I would certainly run with 10 across - getting 21 attacks on the charge for a lone defender guy. Certainly this is taking the pee if this is the rule. However if a Greek unit in Phalanx did the same at 10 wide each would they get 21 also as they charge in two ranks? No matter - you have been totally vindicated even though I disagree with the ruling that you could have as many wide as you get in two ranks against one lone guy and get to throw all pila in two ranks. That's just silly and unrealistic!. Here is the thread wabforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=7149&p=73413#p73413
|
|
|
Post by Simon Robinson on Feb 25, 2010 0:15:25 GMT
WAB page 46 - "warriors directly behind the front rank fighters" use their pilums - same as basic throwing spears.
So a unit with the lone "tail end charlie" charged by a unit equiped with throwing spears of any type , would be subject to attacks from a maximum of 6 models - 3 from the figures touching the lone figure and the three directly behind them
In the example below the unit at the top has been charged by the unit underneath. (Ignore the dashes "-" they are just to get the spacing correct on the board)
The figure C is the last rank of the charged unit the rest of the unit are all eXtras and take no place in this round of combat.
Of the charging unit the 3 front row figures which Hit C may fight and the three behind them throw the Pilums the rest of the unit are Onlookers.
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX ---C OHHHO OPPPO OOOO
Hope this is clear
NOW with skirmishers the charger can do this -
-XXXXX -XXXXX -XXXXX SSSCSSS ---SSS
for 9 models followed by a maximum of 6 models back
They can do this because each skirmisher moves individually, of course they could also just pick on C (max three models)
Never let skirmishers get behind you!
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Feb 25, 2010 1:15:00 GMT
the difference is on the turn you charge in WAB with Pilums they ALL get to throw instead of hand to hand actual fighting .. Simon that contradicts the rule stated by Carl above. So now we have two people with different views. I still prefer Carl's version if I was playing Romans. So many attacks when not even in contact that's gotta be a winner. However got to see where ALL get to throw is in the book. The skirmishers is where I actually got mixed up with for moving into gaps. I knew I saw this somewhere but my bad on that one - sorry Carl I should have paid more attention to that rule. As it was a skirmish game I probably had that in my head.
|
|
|
Post by Andy"windy"Miller on Feb 25, 2010 11:57:10 GMT
Think Simon is right on this one with Pila, those in contact and the row behind them. 6 in the example Simon gave. OK one more thing to consider. If it's romans that are attacked, I've assumed that only the rear rank get to fight with in this case a single pilum. That they do not get the second row, two reasons. One it's common sense, only the rear row would turn to fight and throw, not the next one as well, too engrossed and tricky to wield a pilum around. Secondly the rules state the row behind those in contact get the extra pila and with a rear charge they are in front! Views please. Another one! You have a character in the front rank of a unit attacking the front of the charged unit, with a higher initiative that stikes first, he gets a kill, I'm assuming that because of simultaneous combat, that this doesn't them remove the sole guy at the back as a casaulty !!!! leaving all the new rear rank to fight.
Carl, yes you're right it does say those in base contact in the rules, I was trying to get the point over that the book ought to elaborate more for this situation. It sounds so far that Robert and I arrived at a fair approximation to what should have happened in our example. Luck more than judgement on my part though. Andy
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Feb 25, 2010 17:19:01 GMT
Hopefully WAB2, whenever that will be released, will iron out these inconsistencies.
|
|
|
Post by carl on Feb 25, 2010 18:05:32 GMT
i hadn't played for must be 18 months and i was told that if you charge with pilums BOTH ranks throw them as they go in as long as the unit throwing is no bigger frontage wise than the unit they are charging.
|
|
|
Post by Simon Robinson on Feb 25, 2010 19:19:56 GMT
These things happen, honest mistakes all round
|
|
james
Frostgrave
Posts: 1,221
|
Post by james on Feb 25, 2010 20:27:11 GMT
Apologies if I was out of turn guys asking you to get over it - no harm in a bit of friendly banter though eh? Still can not work whose version above is right so lets hope it does not come up again
|
|
|
Post by Simon Robinson on Feb 25, 2010 20:37:41 GMT
Well we now have a new game - you need several figures and a copy of the rules.
You take it in turns to set tricky situations, points are awarded for originality, difficulty and obscureity.
At the end of the night the person with the most points wins ;D
|
|