Warhammer-Empire.com
The Empire at War ... The Gamers Guild => WHFB The Electors' Forum => Topic started by: redflag on April 26, 2012, 04:03:15 AM
-
Now that apparently detachments prevent impact hits from occurring on the parent unit the question arises what are optimal anti chariot detachments and how do we set up tactics for their use to protect parent units?
Page 71 of the rule book "If the model with impact hits is itself charged, or is fighting a second or subsequent round of combat, then this rule gives no benefit"
Page 30 of our army book under counter charge last paragraph " The enemy does not get to make any charge reactions against a counter charge, but otherwise all the normal charging rules and bonuses apply"
-
it doesnt prevent the impact hits from occuring. the chariot still makes its impact hits agasint the parent unit as the chariots counts as charging the parent unit, and the detachment counts as charging the chariot.
The reason for this is because the chariot is being counter charged, not charged so it doesnt pay heed to the rule you quoted from the rulebook
-
Actually the rule book is crystal clear on this and its the opposite of what you are saying.
it doesnt prevent the impact hits from occuring. the chariot still makes its impact hits agasint the parent unit as the chariots counts as charging the parent unit, and the detachment counts as charging the chariot.
The reason for this is because the chariot is being counter charged, not charged so it doesnt pay heed to the rule you quoted from the rulebook
-
I would argue that the rule quoted is in fact an Impact Hits rule, not a Charging rule, and since the unit has been Counter Charged, not Charged, it does not apply. Unless the reference to impact hits can be found under the charging rules?
-
I would argue otherwise - the only difference between a counter charge and a normal charge is when it occurs and the limited charge selection - apart from that, it's the same business. I think it negates the Impact Hits.
As to how to maximize this... I think the best way to do this is by having 2 small detachments over 1 big detachment. That means that no matter where the opponent contacts you have a chance at a clear charging lane. Next, parking the units at a diagonal in case your opponent is narrow and goes for the middle of a unit (a chariot, essentially).
-
If you are arguing that this is an impact hit rule than the rules are crystal clear
IMPACT HITS (pg 71)
Some models notably chariots have so much impetus that they cause considerable damage when they crash into the enemy. To represent this, those models cause impact hits.
Resolving Impact Hits
Impact hits are only made on the turn the model charges into close combat. If the model with impact hits is itself charged, or is fighting a second or subsequent round of combat, then this rule gives no benifit
-
I am thinking a 3x3 detachment of militia on each flank of a horde would be an optimal anti chariot defense.
I would argue otherwise - the only difference between a counter charge and a normal charge is when it occurs and the limited charge selection - apart from that, it's the same business. I think it negates the Impact Hits.
As to how to maximize this... I think the best way to do this is by having 2 small detachments over 1 big detachment. That means that no matter where the opponent contacts you have a chance at a clear charging lane. Next, parking the units at a diagonal in case your opponent is narrow and goes for the middle of a unit (a chariot, essentially).
-
empire army book page 30, counter charge "The enemy does not get to make any charge reaction agasint a counter charge but otherwise follows all the normal charging rules.
So the chariot still counts as charging that turn, enabling its impact hits.
-
I think that's too meager an investment - you want that detachment to be useful for something else, preferably disrupting ranks. And Militia are worse than Halberdiers in most relevant scenarios, anyway. What I'm thinking is more along the lines of 10-15 Spearmen if you're going cheap, or Swordsmen if you're looking to fill out points.
@satch: It still counts as having charged, but the provision in the Impact Hits special rule says that if you're charged you don't get them. So it doesn't matter if you charged - you still don't get them, because you were charged in the same turn. The same thing would happen if you had a unit with Impact Hits overrun into somebody, then get charged on the opposing player's turn - you don't get those Impact Hits.
-
Seems a tad strange to me, a hulking chariot smashes into a unit and, suddenly all of its oomph disapears. at least in my mind if i run into a car thats smashing itself into a wall. i doubt i will stop the car
-
Leave the real-world examples at the door. The rules are what they are.
-
i can see where you two are coming from, however i am still more inclined to beleive the rules are clarifying that if you charge a chariot in your turn you dont suffer impact hits.
-
It is clear, but a very strange concept.
Some rules in warhammer are their for game play not actual logic.
-
The "provision" is telling people that Impact hits are only from charging, not a bonus you get every round of combat or all the time, hence the reference to second round of combat. Otherwise you're looking at an unstoppable force/immovable object scenario. The rule is crystal that if you charge, you get them. Doesn't say but, doesn't say however - you just get them. Likewise, if you're charged, no Impact Hits are inflicted (per FAQ change, the "has no effect" was removed). If we take the second rule as an absolute we must take the first, as there is no grammar to indicate the second is a provision on the first.
It's either a roll off, or you get them IF you take the Counter Charge to be a normal Charge, which is debatable anyway. If they are not one and the same, then there is no question, you get them. Hopefully this gets FAQ'd into the main rules because the overrun example is a good one. I'd say you do get them, but it's not Empire specific at least.
-
While I think redflag is indeed correct in his interpretation of this rule, I think its a rules as written vs rules as intended thing. I don't think GW meant for us to be able to completely negate impact hits in this manner, more likely it was just oversight on their part. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a verdict rendered on this one way or another when the FAQ comes out.
-
Redflag's interpretation is correct if you only take into consideration the literal meaning of the text. But the intention of the rulewriter is quite clear too: if the chariot charges he gets the extra attacks if it is charged it does not. Tertium non datur.
The parent unit what have been charged gets impact hits, the detachment what countercharged does not.
-
Assuming this was an intended benefit of counter charging detachments, I think in an all-comers list you still won't want a bunch of small detachments since they won't do much else, and now that detachments cause panic in other units you won't want the liability of lots of tiny, easy to rout detachments. Most opponents won't have much that causes impact hits anyway. If you know you are facing Ogres or something of course take every detachment you can.
That being said, this seems like rules lawyering to me. Surely this has come up before when something charges a chariot out of sequence, like an overrun or something? It's one of those things that if it had come up in playtesting and the developer realized how this would work, there would have been something in the army book about it. I will not use it until it's FAQ'd. If it turns out you guys are correct then great, but I'm not going to argue about it.
-
Most obvious instance of it happening otherwise would be an overrun from a prior combat(they charged on their turn and landed into an enemy unit where the combat has not yet resolved) and then gets charged. I don't see how the detachments' countercharge would not fulfill the exception in the impact hits rule. It will be even more fun against ogre kingdoms.
-
I'm not even reading through all the wishful thinking on detachments denying Impact Hits ---- when it says that a chariot doesn't get impact hits when it is charged, it's using wording that was not written with detachments in mind -- basically it's saying in an ordinary charge situation, if the enemy charged a chariot on their turn, they wouldn't get impact hits, the chariot would have to be charging.
The chariot has charged the Regiment and has hit it.
The detachment charges the chariot and does not suffer impact hits.
If you try to twist this, you're a hopeless, miserable rules lawyer and I'm glad I'm not playing you.
-
i can see where you two are coming from, however i am still more inclined to beleive the rules are clarifying that if you charge a chariot in your turn you dont suffer impact hits.
I think it's pretty clear that was the intention, but until it is FAQd that's the way it works
-
I'm with Syn Ace on this. Obviously I come from very friendly and non-competitive meta but I still can't believe there are people who would argue about this. I'd never ever play somenone who wanted to twist and turn rules like this.
-
I would never dare to argue such a nonsense in my favour.
The wording can be interpreted both ways, it is not as crystal clear as pretended.
People who intend to use that are not showing a high fair play attitude.
Note that I like to use all rules when available (conga line included), just I'm not eager to twist them as much as in this thread.wishful thinking on detachments denying Impact Hits ---- when it says that a chariot doesn't get impact hits when it is charged, it's using wording that was not written with detachments in mind -- basically it's saying in an ordinary charge situation, if the enemy charged a chariot on their turn, they wouldn't get impact hits, the chariot would have to be charging.
The chariot has charged the Regiment and has hit it.
The detachment charges the chariot and does not suffer impact hits.
If you try to twist this, you're a hopeless, miserable rules lawyer and I'm glad I'm not playing you.
+1I still can't believe there are people who would argue about this. I'd never ever play somenone who wanted to twist and turn rules like this.
+1, too
-
I'm shocked at this blatantly wrong interpretation of one of the most clear rules in the book. With all respect, but this is cheating, period, and needs not even be discussed.
-
Only thing this rules says is that the detachments won´t get any impact hits....story end.
-
I would never dare to argue such a nonsense in my favour.
The wording can be interpreted both ways, it is not as crystal clear as pretended.
People who intend to use that are not showing a high fair play attitude.
Note that I like to use all rules when available (conga line included), just I'm not eager to twist them as much as in this thread.wishful thinking on detachments denying Impact Hits ---- when it says that a chariot doesn't get impact hits when it is charged, it's using wording that was not written with detachments in mind -- basically it's saying in an ordinary charge situation, if the enemy charged a chariot on their turn, they wouldn't get impact hits, the chariot would have to be charging.
The chariot has charged the Regiment and has hit it.
The detachment charges the chariot and does not suffer impact hits.
If you try to twist this, you're a hopeless, miserable rules lawyer and I'm glad I'm not playing you.
+1I still can't believe there are people who would argue about this. I'd never ever play somenone who wanted to twist and turn rules like this.
+1, too
+1
Seriously guys? Want to win this desperately?
-
I'm not even reading through all the wishful thinking on detachments denying Impact Hits ---- when it says that a chariot doesn't get impact hits when it is charged, it's using wording that was not written with detachments in mind -- basically it's saying in an ordinary charge situation, if the enemy charged a chariot on their turn, they wouldn't get impact hits, the chariot would have to be charging.
The chariot has charged the Regiment and has hit it.
The detachment charges the chariot and does not suffer impact hits.
If you try to twist this, you're a hopeless, miserable rules lawyer and I'm glad I'm not playing you.
2 threads where this cropped up where I replied to and now a seperate thread aswell.
oh my god...
Like Syn ace said with the addition: Treat each charge as a seperate combat!
The chariot has charged the Regiment and has hit it. thus impact hits on the Regimental unit
The detachment charges the chariot and does not suffer impact hits.
If I catch anyone rules laywering this to me I'll let them feel what impact hits are...
And I'm glad this gets alot of support now here.
-
First of all the intention of the wording in the rule book is crystal clear. If a unit that causes impact hits is charged it does not cause impact hits period. There is no FAQ in the rule book as far as I am aware that the impact hits occur on the other unit. GW has had over a year to clarify this and obviously choose not to therefore if a unit charges a chariot that charges a another unit no impact hits occur.
Second of all I am pointing out that Robin Cruddac stated in writing that "all charge rules and bonuses apply". He did not say "all charge rules and bonuses apply EXCEPT....
-
First of all the intention of the wording in the rule book is crystal clear. If a unit that causes impact hits is charged it does not cause impact hits period.
Sorry but it is quite clear the chariot will cause impact hits on the Regimental unit because it charged Detachment rules page 30: "Detatchment makes an out of sequence move........This move is made after your opponent has moved all of his charging units...... The enemy does not get to make any charge reactions against a Counter Charge, but otherwise all the normal charging rules and bonuses apply.
The chariot has charged into contact with the Regimental unit and this will cause impact hits. To play this any other way is wrong.
-
First of all the intention of the wording in the rule book is crystal clear. If a unit that causes impact hits is charged it does not cause impact hits period. There is no FAQ in the rule book as far as I am aware that the impact hits occur on the other unit. GW has had over a year to clarify this and obviously choose not to therefore if a unit charges a chariot that charges a another unit no impact hits occur.
To me all i see is that when charging you dont suffer impact hits, i cant see anywhere where it says in a very "crystal clear" manner that counter charging via overun or detachments, you negate the impacts hits on a different unit.
Unit A was charged and takes impact hits, Unit B coutner charged and does not take impact hits -even- though they are hitting a -charging- unit with impact hits
-
Principle of St. Paul applies here I think.
-
The rule should played as RAW.
It clearly states:
"Impact Hits are only made on the turn the model charges into close combat. If the model with Impact Hits is itself charged, or is fighting in a second or subsequent round of combat, then this rule gives NO benefit".
1. Did the model with Impact Hits charge? Yes
2. Was the model delivering the Impact Hits charged? Yes
Please tell me how a unit with impact hits can get charged in the same turn it charged, aside from Empire Detachments.................................................I'm waiting.
It doesn't say Impact Hits gives no benefit vs. the charger, it says it gives NO benefit.
Nobody knows what RAI is. When 8th came out did people expect GW to rule that fleeing wizards could still dispel? I would say more than 50% would have said no.
-
Only thing this rules says is that the detachments won´t get any impact hits....story end.
That's something, at least.
-
Only thing this rules says is that the detachments won´t get any impact hits....story end.
That's something, at least.
Well rather the rules mean that the detachments won't suffer any impact hits.
The rule should played as RAW.
No it really shouldn't. Normally when people claim that things should be played RAW it is because they have discovered a wonderful, cheezy, beardy, low down, cheap, guttersnipe and cheating loophole that they are trying to dress up nicely.
It clearly states:
"Impact Hits are only made on the turn the model charges into close combat. If the model with Impact Hits is itself charged, or is fighting in a second or subsequent round of combat, then this rule gives NO benefit".
1. Did the model with Impact Hits charge? Yes
2. Was the model delivering the Impact Hits charged? Yes
Please tell me how a unit with impact hits can get charged in the same turn it charged, aside from Empire Detachments.................................................I'm waiting.
It doesn't say Impact Hits gives no benefit vs. the charger, it says it gives NO benefit.
Nobody knows what RAI is. When 8th came out did people expect GW to rule that fleeing wizards could still dispel? I would say more than 50% would have said no.
I donno why I rise to the trolls sometimes but I do.
Combat A is beside Combat B. Combat A involves some empire knights and some orge stuff. Combat B involves some empire infantry and some orge stuff. The Orges overcharged in their own turn into combat b (thus counting as charging). The Empire player charged in his turn into combat A. Now if the Empire player wins combat A and overruns he could strike the flank of the orges in combat B.
Under such conditions the only proper way to rule (not that proper means no rules lawyering) is that should the conditions apply that the Empire player does win combat a and overrun then the orges in combat B still strike their impact hits against the unit they charged.
The car example from above is quite good in this.
Stop rules lawyering people and try and remember what the rules are trying to represent
-
IT could also happen if a unit runs into a unit or model that had charged that turn after pursuing. If the close combat that the pursuing unit blundered into had not been resolved, that unit now gets to fight in that combat as if it also had charged.
It would be rare, but Empire Detachments are not the only way this could happen. Im fact, i'm sure it has happened to someone who plays for or against Ogres alot. It's just no one ever thought about it like this until now.
-
That could be because most people are decent non rules lawyer sorts
-
First of all the intention of the wording in the rule book is crystal clear. If a unit that causes impact hits is charged it does not cause impact hits period. There is no FAQ in the rule book as far as I am aware that the impact hits occur on the other unit. GW has had over a year to clarify this and obviously choose not to therefore if a unit charges a chariot that charges a another unit no impact hits occur.
Second of all I am pointing out that Robin Cruddac stated in writing that "all charge rules and bonuses apply". He did not say "all charge rules and bonuses apply EXCEPT....
This is not crystal clear. The only thing crystal clear is you guys are warping the rules. You are obviously misinterpreting the intent of the original rule that was obviously written to clarify that a chariot that is charged by something else does not inflict impact hits on the charger. In this instance, the chariot has charged and slammed into the Regiment, then after all chargers have moved, the detachment charges the chariot and suffers no wounds. You guys can try to weasel this all you want, but I personally would be too ashamed to even try to argue in favor of the interpretation you are championing and if you want to look like a fool trying to pull this off in a game or tourney, then you deserve all the scorn and ridicule that will be heading your way.
Sorry, I'm easily annoyed today.
-
Some strong feelings being bandied about here. Interesting.
Upon re-reading the text, I think it's definitely unclear as to whether you'd negate Impact Hits on the parent, but you definitely negate Impact Hits on the counter-charging detachment, which is still valuable, because it means you can potentially apply overwhelming static CR to something like a Chariot and not even have to make the first Steadfast Ld test.
-
So you get charged by four Ogre Mournfangs and they crash into your greatswords. They rolled a 10 on their swiftstride charge. You're going to take 8D3 impact hits even though your detachment counter charged them.
You're such a great person and fun to play with, you bent over and took it like a man even though the rule CLEARLY says otherwise.
I would love you play against you in a tourney, it'd be easy pickens.
-
Mournfangs don't double their Impact Hits on a 10+. They always just get a flat D3.
And it's not clear, because the Greatswords didn't charge the Mournfangs. The detachment did. There needs to be some clarification on whether all impact hits are negated, or only the ones that would otherwise affect the detachment (because the Mournfangs still count as having charged that turn). It would be great if it did negate impact hits altogether, but we simply can't say for sure... yet.
-
I'm pretty sure this is all hypothetical in regards to it occurring in a tourney because I doubt any major tourney will rule that a detachment nullifies impact hits. I mean half of the Empire players agree it makes zero sense.
If GW wants to come out and say it nullifies impact hits, great -- I'll be all for it. But as of now, it's wishful thinking.
-
Mournfangs don't double their Impact Hits on a 10+. They always just get a flat D3.
And it's not clear, because the Greatswords didn't charge the Mournfangs. The detachment did. There needs to be some clarification on whether all impact hits are negated, or only the ones that would otherwise affect the detachment (because the Mournfangs still count as having charged that turn). It would be great if it did negate impact hits altogether, but we simply can't say for sure... yet.
Thanks for clearing that up rothgar13.
-
What happens if a chariot is charged by a pursuing unit from another combat, before it's own combat has been resolved? Does it lose it's impact hits? Or if two units pursue into each other? (Is it even possible?)
Shadowwolf
-
I'm pretty sure this is all hypothetical in regards to it occurring in a tourney because I doubt any major tourney will rule that a detachment nullifies impact hits. I mean half of the Empire players agree it makes zero sense.
If GW wants to come out and say it nullifies impact hits, great -- I'll be all for it. But as of now, it's wishful thinking.
It's not wishful thinking Syn. The rule clearly says the Impacts have no benefit. It doesn't say to what it has no benefit. It says 'no benefit'. It sounds pretty darn cut and dry that it's effectively nullified.
Those of us on the other side of the argument can say it's wishful thinking to allow the impact hits.
-
What happens if a chariot is charged by a pursuing unit from another combat, before it's own combat has been resolved? Does it lose it's impact hits? Or if two units pursue into each other? (Is it even possible?)
Shadowwolf
No the second option is not possible (I think!). Since you would never have two pursuing units from separate forces moving at the same time. The second one to move would simply count as charging the first.
The first example would be the most common encountering of this. It has certainly happened in some of my games, albeit without anything that caused impact hits. I am sure it has happened many times especially for those that play Ogres but I doubt this even crossed their minds.
-
What happens if a chariot is charged by a pursuing unit from another combat, before it's own combat has been resolved? Does it lose it's impact hits? Or if two units pursue into each other? (Is it even possible?)
Shadowwolf
No the second option is not possible (I think!). Since you would never have two pursuing units from separate forces moving at the same time. The second one to move would simply count as charging the first.
The first example would be the most common encountering of this. It has certainly happened in some of my games, albeit without anything that caused impact hits. I am sure it has happened many times especially for those that play Ogres but I doubt this even crossed their minds.
What I mean is that by the same logic, impact hits would be cancelled by units pursuing into an enemy in a unresolved combat. Has this ever been discussed?
Shadowwolf
-
What happens if a chariot is charged by a pursuing unit from another combat, before it's own combat has been resolved? Does it lose it's impact hits? Or if two units pursue into each other? (Is it even possible?)
Shadowwolf
No the second option is not possible (I think!). Since you would never have two pursuing units from separate forces moving at the same time. The second one to move would simply count as charging the first.
The first example would be the most common encountering of this. It has certainly happened in some of my games, albeit without anything that caused impact hits. I am sure it has happened many times especially for those that play Ogres but I doubt this even crossed their minds.
What I mean is that by the same logic, impact hits would be cancelled by units pursuing into an enemy in a unresolved combat. Has this ever been discussed?
Shadowwolf
Yes sorry that's what I meant in the last paragraph. It surely has happened before since wiht Ogres you are playing practically an entire army with Impact hits. I have never personally seen anything online or heard it discussed at the LGS. Until now I assume people play it that the impact hits still occur.
-
I'm a regular over at the Ogre forums, and I have to say I don't recall this being discussed. To be honest, I hadn't taken that close a look at the Impact Hits special rule until now.
-
Not buying it. Chariot still gets its impact hits on the unit it charged. Step back and quit reading the rule book with your WAAC glasses on. sheesh
-
What I find most interesting about this thread is the way those claiming to be on the side of fair play and honesty and good sportsmanship are some of the biggest jerks I've ever seen.
I don't even care what the argument is. People disagree, stop thinking your morally superior because of how you read a book.
-
Well said, sir. :::cheers:::
-
Well said, sir. :::cheers:::
+1 :::cheers:::
-
So what do we do when both sides can't agree? Roll a d6, I got a 4 what did you get?
-
Whern i first read the part about charges negating impact hits; my first thought was simply; "Oh, thats a nice bonus. That'll give my troops some protection from Ogre charges". I didn't even consider it to be a "cheesy" or "WAAC"; so everyone suggesting that people reading the rules that way are looking for additional benefits can pipe down. There are different ways of reading/ understanding things, and not everyone is out to "make the most" of certain rules.
It really frustrates me that people suggest your cheesy, beardy or cheating just because your comprehend the rules a certain way.
Secondly, how did i justify this idea? It made me think of the scene in gladiator, where the slaves in the collisuim formed a shieldwall, and stepped out, to flip the chariot. Ie, the fact that a second unit counter-charged a charging chariot ect would disrupt it's charge.. throwing it off in some way
-
I'm pretty sure this is all hypothetical in regards to it occurring in a tourney because I doubt any major tourney will rule that a detachment nullifies impact hits. I mean half of the Empire players agree it makes zero sense.
If GW wants to come out and say it nullifies impact hits, great -- I'll be all for it. But as of now, it's wishful thinking.
It's not wishful thinking Syn. The rule clearly says the Impacts have no benefit. It doesn't say to what it has no benefit. It says 'no benefit'. It sounds pretty darn cut and dry that it's effectively nullified.
Those of us on the other side of the argument can say it's wishful thinking to allow the impact hits.
Sorry Cursain, it is extremely wishful thinking and you simply have to read the original rule and its intent and then look at the detachment rule in that context. The way you guys are trying to interpret the wording and apply it to the new detachment rule is just not supported in light of how the original rule functions.
You can try to get players of other armies to go along with your interpretation, but I seriously doubt you'll be able to sell this one to the general Warhammer population.
-
Whern i first read the part about charges negating impact hits; my first thought was simply; "Oh, thats a nice bonus. That'll give my troops some protection from Ogre charges". I didn't even consider it to be a "cheesy" or "WAAC"; so everyone suggesting that people reading the rules that way are looking for additional benefits can pipe down. There are different ways of reading/ understanding things, and not everyone is out to "make the most" of certain rules.
It really frustrates me that people suggest your cheesy, beardy or cheating just because your comprehend the rules a certain way.
Secondly, how did i justify this idea? It made me think of the scene in gladiator, where the slaves in the collisuim formed a shieldwall, and stepped out, to flip the chariot. Ie, the fact that a second unit counter-charged a charging chariot ect would disrupt it's charge.. throwing it off in some way
People arguing against the rule must never watch American football. How many times have running backs, quarter backs, and receivers been saved from an impact because the tackler was thrown off balance or pushed by a teammate to lessen its effectiveness.
The same concept should apply for detachments counter charging an enemy as it slams into its parent unit. The "impact's" would be severely reduced because its inertia was slowed down. The counter charge is an out of turn action, but in all reality if the game was real time we'd see the detachment slam into the side of the charging unit at the same time it meets the parent.
-
I like these analogies! Now if only we could get a convincing FAQ one way or the other...
-
Doesn't need a FAQ. I'm wrong. They -will- get impact hits. BRB p58, bottom left hand corner
-
well that does indeed seem clear as day! im glad this can now hopefully be put to rest
-
Yep, that'll do it. Good find.
-
For those of us at work, what does the quote from 58 say? Glad it can be put to rest anyway.
-
In basic terms, it says that both units count as charging, and receive the normal bonuses for this, inc. impact hits.
Wasn't my find.. I got it from Dan Heelan via twitter.
-
I read the information in 58 and in the example it doesn't talk about a unit that causes impact hits getting charged itself. It talks about the bonuses pursuers get, ie impact hits, charging bonus, lance strength bonus etc.
That isn't the question or circumstance we are talking about, and this example is very broad and covers several different topics in one or two sentences.
Impact hits has many defined rules in page 71, one of which is not covered in pg 58's example. In page 58 it just says impact hits would resolve against the unit from the unit that delivers them.
What happens to a unit which causes impact hits, when IT IS charged before the impact hits have happened.
I'm obviously missing something. Please type out the exact sentence on page 58 where it gives an example of a unit that causes impact hits, getting charged before impact hits resolved. I would love to be proven wrong.
-
With all due respect please quote exactly what you are talking about.
-
I don't know how much of the Brb i'm allowed to quote on the forum, is why i am trying to paraphrase it.
The example given in the brb is when a unit overruns/ persues into a unit, and then is charged by another unit before the combat takes place. It then goes on to say than Both units count as charging, and Both units would recieve their normal charging bonuses. It then goes on to specifically list impact hits as one of these.
-
Quoting a paragraph is fine generally. Quoting a bunch of points values steps over the line. You're not explaining how combat works step by step or whatever.
-
Except that your example is not specific to the situation but a broad statement here let me quote pg 58 " In the following turn's combat phase, the pursuers will swill count as charging. This might result in both sides having charging units in the same fight, in which case the charging units on both sides will get the normal charging bonuses conferred by charging (eg causing impact hits, benefiting from lance charge etc"
In other words you can have a chariot that overruns into a fight and is itself not charged during the other player's turn and it gives impact hits to the combat.
I don't know how much of the Brb i'm allowed to quote on the forum, is why i am trying to paraphrase it.
The example given in the brb is when a unit overruns/ persues into a unit, and then is charged by another unit before the combat takes place. It then goes on to say than Both units count as charging, and Both units would recieve their normal charging bonuses. It then goes on to specifically list impact hits as one of these.
-
Again, your original argument relies on the idea that the chariot being charged negates its bonus for charging. Not only does 58 seem to make the case that this is untrue, but the rule itself is not even worded in that way. Else how could a chariot be charging AND in the second round of it's own combat? How is that possible? That sentence is not a proviso on the first, it's merely saying that Impact Hits are caused by charging, not by anything else.
To sum:
Charging causes Impact Hits.
Even in combats where both sides have charged, you still get Impact Hits.
No rule suggests there are conditions on this taking place outside the above.
The weight of the rules and grammar is against you.
-
Except that your example is not specific to the situation but a broad statement here let me quote pg 58 " In the following turn's combat phase, the pursuers will swill count as charging. This might result in both sides having charging units in the same fight, in which case the charging units on both sides will get the normal charging bonuses conferred by charging (eg causing impact hits, benefiting from lance charge etc"
In other words you can have a chariot that overruns into a fight and is itself not charged during the other player's turn and it gives impact hits to the combat.
I don't know how much of the Brb i'm allowed to quote on the forum, is why i am trying to paraphrase it.
The example given in the brb is when a unit overruns/ persues into a unit, and then is charged by another unit before the combat takes place. It then goes on to say than Both units count as charging, and Both units would recieve their normal charging bonuses. It then goes on to specifically list impact hits as one of these.
Yes it's not EXACTLY like what we are describing, but the intent is obvious don't you think? In that example the chariot could itself have been charged by a pursuer, and according to that blurb would still get it's impact hits. Case solved as far as impact hits being negated. The only question I need to look up is whether the detachment would have to suffer impact hits, which would be strange.
-
Except that your example is not specific to the situation but a broad statement here let me quote pg 58 " In the following turn's combat phase, the pursuers will swill count as charging. This might result in both sides having charging units in the same fight, in which case the charging units on both sides will get the normal charging bonuses conferred by charging (eg causing impact hits, benefiting from lance charge etc"
In other words you can have a chariot that overruns into a fight and is itself not charged during the other player's turn and it gives impact hits to the combat.
I don't know how much of the Brb i'm allowed to quote on the forum, is why i am trying to paraphrase it.
The example given in the brb is when a unit overruns/ persues into a unit, and then is charged by another unit before the combat takes place. It then goes on to say than Both units count as charging, and Both units would recieve their normal charging bonuses. It then goes on to specifically list impact hits as one of these.
Yes it's not EXACTLY like what we are describing, but the intent is obvious don't you think? In that example the chariot could itself have been charged by a pursuer, and according to that blurb would still get it's impact hits. Case solved as far as impact hits being negated. The only question I need to look up is whether the detachment would have to suffer impact hits, which would be strange.
Please tell me why the author wrote on page 71 "If the model with Impact Hits is itself charged, or is fighting in a second or subsequent round of combat......the rule has no benefit"
Wouldn't it have been easier to just say "If the model with Impact Hits is fighting in a second or subsequent round of combat, then this rule has no benefit".
Why did they talk about the chariot being charged?
Wouldn't it have been more clear to say: "If a chariot is charged it doesn't deliver impact hits on the unit that charged it".
That would seem WORLDS more clear then what you guys are trying to serve us.
-
For example lets say in turn 1 my goblins charge a unit of empire swordsmen and my chariot overruns into the swordsmen after combat is resolved with my goblins. That means my chariot will fight in turn 2
..............Goblins
Chariot-)Swordsmen
In turn 2 my opponent's empire knights charge into my goblins
..............Goblins(--Knights
Chariot-)Swordsmen
During the combat phase since my Chariot was not charged it gets impact hits and the Knights get their lance +2 strenght
On the other hand if the Knights charged into my chariot during turn 2
...............Goblins
Chariot-)Swordsmen
Knights
Then my Chariot does not get its overrun impact hits on turn 2.
Except that your example is not specific to the situation but a broad statement here let me quote pg 58 " In the following turn's combat phase, the pursuers will swill count as charging. This might result in both sides having charging units in the same fight, in which case the charging units on both sides will get the normal charging bonuses conferred by charging (eg causing impact hits, benefiting from lance charge etc"
In other words you can have a chariot that overruns into a fight and is itself not charged during the other player's turn and it gives impact hits to the combat.
I don't know how much of the Brb i'm allowed to quote on the forum, is why i am trying to paraphrase it.
The example given in the brb is when a unit overruns/ persues into a unit, and then is charged by another unit before the combat takes place. It then goes on to say than Both units count as charging, and Both units would recieve their normal charging bonuses. It then goes on to specifically list impact hits as one of these.
Yes it's not EXACTLY like what we are describing, but the intent is obvious don't you think? In that example the chariot could itself have been charged by a pursuer, and according to that blurb would still get it's impact hits. Case solved as far as impact hits being negated. The only question I need to look up is whether the detachment would have to suffer impact hits, which would be strange.
-
They spoke about the chariot being charged because that is a case of first round combat where it would not inflict impact hits. You realise right that this is introducing what Impact Hits actually are. To us it's obvious that they are inflicted when you charge. If cavalry charge a stationary chariot, of course there are no hits. But they need to write rules that actually say this. Do you think it would have been clearer to write "A chariot that is charged does not inflict Impact Hits unless it too has charged this turn via an overrun"? How would that not confuse the new player?
No, it's saying that Impact Hits are from charging, not from being charged, not every round of combat. There is NOTHING saying that you can charge and not get impact hits. It just says if you charge you get them, if you are charged you don't. There is nothing saying the second is a provision of the first. Best case scenario for your argument would be a roll off.
We're not trying to serve anything. This is how it has always been played and how it is still played and the rules support it. There are two references to charging giving Impact Hits and one of them specifically references out of sequence charges and multiple opposing charges, just not that the actual Impact Hits unit was the one with the opposing charge. The weight of the argument is with us.
-
In the following turn's combat phase, the pursuers will still count as charging. This might result in both sides having charging units in the same fight, in which case the charging units on both sides will get the normal charging bonuses conferred by charging (eg causing impact hits, benefiting from lance charge etc.
Let's parse this here; first sentence describes how (in a particular situation - overrun / pursuit) pursuers will count as charging.
Second sentence, before the comma, says this (overrun / pursuit) might (can possibly) result in a particular situation. That situation is; both sides having charging units in the same fight.
Second sentence, after the comma, speaks of what happens "in which [this] case". The case is not pursuit - because only sometimes (might) does this result in both sides charging. The case is "both sides charging".
Ergo; counter-charge does NOT negate impact hits - based on this ruling. Both the unit charging the regimental unit (Orcs, say) and the detachment (Empire) are charging in the same combat. Both gain the advantage of impact hits etc.
It is a fair and reasonable assumption that "charging" is done to a specific unit - one cannot just be "charging", one is charging SOMETHING. So, one only gets one's benefits vs that unit(s). This is something where a RAW ruling is harder to find - but I think it's pretty obvious what is intended.
And it is certainly the case a RAW ruling using pg 58 is in accord with "counter-charge does not negate charge bonuses".
-
Dark Knight rather than parse words how about this radical concept Go to the Index in the back of your book and look up Impact hits. It will tell you to go to page 71. Under Impact hits Look under the heading Resolving Impact Hits and begin to read from there.
Sig same thing with you. You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. Its a fact that impact hits is in the index and its a fact that the index tells you to go to page 71. Its also a fact that in page 71 there is a section labeled Resolving Impact hits.
Its also a fact that under the heading resolving impact hits there is the following sentence "If the model with impact hits is itself charged, or is fighting in a second or subsequent round of combat, than this rule gives no benefit"
-
Dark Knight rather than parse words how about this radical concept Go to the Index in the back of your book and look up Impact hits. It will tell you to go to page 71. Under Impact hits Look under the heading Resolving Impact Hits and begin to read from there.
Sig same thing with you. You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. Its a fact that impact hits is in the index and its a fact that the index tells you to go to page 71. Its also a fact that in page 71 there is a section labeled Resolving Impact hits.
Are you saying we should ignore rules that are not referenced in the index? You know that rules for even one part of the game are spread out over several sections very often. That's obviously the wrong way to treat this redflag. Very, very few parts of Warhammer are explained entirely in just one section of the book. Assuming I am not misunderstanding you, you would have us ignore any mention of impact hits that's not on page 71? It's frustrating but just a fact that you have to dig through multiple sections to figure it out sometimes.
-
You know full well what I am saying. If the model with impact hits is itself charged, or is fighting in a second or subsequent round of combat, than this rule gives no benefit
Dark Knight rather than parse words how about this radical concept Go to the Index in the back of your book and look up Impact hits. It will tell you to go to page 71. Under Impact hits Look under the heading Resolving Impact Hits and begin to read from there.
Sig same thing with you. You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. Its a fact that impact hits is in the index and its a fact that the index tells you to go to page 71. Its also a fact that in page 71 there is a section labeled Resolving Impact hits.
Are you saying we should ignore rules that are not referenced in the index? You know that rules for even one part of the game are spread out over several sections very often. That's obviously the wrong way to treat this redflag. Very, very few parts of Warhammer are explained entirely in just one section of the book. Assuming I am not misunderstanding you, you would have us ignore any mention of impact hits that's not on page 71? It's frustrating but just a fact that you have to dig through multiple sections to figure it out sometimes.
-
So what? You're not even quoting up to date rules. Page 58 has some "facts" for you, or do you think these don't apply because they don't suit your argument? Are you seriously saying only the index can define which rules apply to a situation? Wow.
The Impact Hits section clearly states if you charge you get them. You haven't come up with a single reason as to why this is not the case when you are on the receiving end at the same time. The second sentence has on page 71 has nothing to indicate it is a proviso on the first sentence. This is not explaining Impact Hits to veterans, but rather beginners, because that's what rules do and it is explaining that you only get Impact Hits when you charge on the first round of combat, not when you are charged in the first round of combat, and not in the second round of combat. Usually charging and being charged are mutually exclusive. However in this situation they are not.
Can you point to the rule that addresses this conflict? Simply repeating the rules over and over implies you don't actually have an argument. Page 58 seems to resolve this nicely. You're going to need more than simply requoting out of date rules.
-
I'm going to have to agree - there's not really any difference between a counter-charge scenario and the one described in page 58, and that situation has been resolved there. Just because the outcome isn't to your liking doesn't mean that it's not a valid one.
-
Up to date rules? Are we not in the 8th edition? Because as far as I am aware under the 8th edition rulebook there is an index in the back of the book that has stuff in it arranged in alphabetical order. In my rulebook Impact Hits can be found in the index on page 183. In my 8th edition rulebook next to impact hits it instructs you to turn to page 71.
So what? You're not even quoting up to date rules. Page 58 has some "facts" for you, or do you think these don't apply because they don't suit your argument? Are you seriously saying only the index can define which rules apply to a situation? Wow.
The Impact Hits section clearly states if you charge you get them. You haven't come up with a single reason as to why this is not the case when you are on the receiving end at the same time. The second sentence has on page 71 has nothing to indicate it is a proviso on the first sentence. This is not explaining Impact Hits to veterans, but rather beginners, because that's what rules do and it is explaining that you only get Impact Hits when you charge on the first round of combat, not when you are charged in the first round of combat, and not in the second round of combat. Usually charging and being charged are mutually exclusive. However in this situation they are not.
Can you point to the rule that addresses this conflict? Simply repeating the rules over and over implies you don't actually have an argument. Page 58 seems to resolve this nicely. You're going to need more than simply requoting out of date rules.
-
I am sorry is this a fact or an opinion? As I said to others you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to assume these opinions are facts.
I'm going to have to agree - there's not really any difference between a counter-charge scenario and the one described in page 58, and that situation has been resolved there. Just because the outcome isn't to your liking doesn't mean that it's not a valid one.
-
The FAQ changed the wording of that segment. And your index stunt is just a stunt. Or are you saying nothing except the Impact Hits section has any value in a discussion of Impact Hits, even if another section specifically mentions them. Because that's just an unsustainable position and makes you sound desperate.
Again. Show me how, on page 71, the line saying "Impact hits are only made on the turn the unit charges into combat" can be contradicted. Show me where it says "On the turn the unit charges, the unit will not get Impact Hits if..." It does not. There is no contradiction. No matter what counter charges take place, it is STILL the turn in which the unit charged.
Again, either it is a roll off (if you take the second line as an absolute, you must take the first as an absolute) or you just plain get them.
-
How some of you guys find people to play with I'll never understand...
-
Because we work out all our rules disagreements here first, perhaps? You don't know many, if any, people here, so I wouldn't judge if I were you. Makes you look foolish.
-
I just wanted to say that last couple of RedFlag's posts have been hilarious :eusa_clap: :-D
Pure comedy gold! :biggriin:
-
Because we work out all our rules disagreements here first, perhaps? You don't know many, if any, people here, so I wouldn't judge if I were you. Makes you look foolish.
You are quite right and I'm sure most of the people on here are just lovely persons. It's their "gaming spirits" I'm questioning. I have lots of friends that I wouldn't even dream of playing a game with. Anyhow my wish wasn't to insult, which was why I didn't use any names. Since you seem to have taken offense I feel the need to express my apologies and also state that you and I seem to be on the same side in this argument.
Perhaps these kind of questions are of more importance to tourney players but I for one can't fathom the willingness to interpret rules in the most favourable way all the time.
-
Because we work out all our rules disagreements here first, perhaps? You don't know many, if any, people here, so I wouldn't judge if I were you. Makes you look foolish.
well a fool I shall be, this whole thread and its premise is foolish. Now onto other foolish threads, I am done with the shenanigans and "moral" juxtapositioning. :mrgreen:
-
BRB pg 58
"If the unit that has been charged as a result of a pursuit was not engaged in combat from the beginning of this combat phase, or if it was engaged but that fight has already been resolved in this combat, phase the combat is not resolved straight away, but in the combaty phase of the following turn.
In the following turn's combat phase the pursuers will still count as charging.
This might result in both sides having charging units on both sides will get the normal bonuses conferred by charging (eg causing impact hits, benefiting from a lance's Strength bonus, etc. and other bonuses described later in the this rules section. Also, both sides will get the +1 combat resolution bonus, which will effectively cacel each other out."
BRB pg 71
"Impact hits are only made on the turn the model charges into close combat. If the model with Impact Hits is itself charged, or is fighting in a second or subsequent round of combat, then this rule gives no benefit. note that if the model does not complete the charge for any reason...."
I quoted the rules exactly how printed in the book (with the typo and all see if you can find it)
I bolded the parts that are causing the debate. Finding conflicting rules in WHFB is nothing new, though rare to find them in the same book. While I am a HUGE fan of RAW (not because I'm WAAC, but because I want to play WHFB and not playing by the rules as written means I'm playing something else) I have to say that I think the intent of this is clear to me. The Impact hits rules were poorly written (no surprise here). I believe that in trying to clear up that Impact hits only happen on a successful charge and only on the first round of combat for the charging unit they over convoluted the wording and created this issue. p. 58 would seem to back up this idea. While the wording on 58 does specifically mention overrunning and persuing that is because it's under that section of the BRB. In truth this is a fault with the EAB. Crudd is not a good writer, he isn't a WFB player, he's a 40k player. Sometimes things like this escape the writer, especially one not entierly familier with the rules set. Even though you'll normally find me arguing for RAW, in this case I have to say that RAW is conflicting and RAI seems pretty clear.
-
I am going to stop responding to you since apparently you have no credibility. Here is what the FAQ stated
Resolving Impact Hits
Change “[...]this rule has no effect.” to “[...]no Impact Hits
are inflicted.”
The FAQ changed the wording of that segment. And your index stunt is just a stunt. Or are you saying nothing except the Impact Hits section has any value in a discussion of Impact Hits, even if another section specifically mentions them. Because that's just an unsustainable position and makes you sound desperate.
Again. Show me how, on page 71, the line saying "Impact hits are only made on the turn the unit charges into combat" can be contradicted. Show me where it says "On the turn the unit charges, the unit will not get Impact Hits if..." It does not. There is no contradiction. No matter what counter charges take place, it is STILL the turn in which the unit charged.
Again, either it is a roll off (if you take the second line as an absolute, you must take the first as an absolute) or you just plain get them.
-
" If the model with impact hits is not in base contact with the enemy, no impact hits are inflicted" has nothing to do with
"If the model with impact hits is itself charged, or is fighting in a second round of combat, than this rule gives no benefit"
-
How is this still going
-
My case would be that the "if the model itself is charged ..." refers to a model with the impact hits special rule NOT inflicting impact hits in the enemy's turn when it itself is charged, on the model which charged it.
Telling me to "not parse words" when the entire discussion is about the parsing of words seems weak, no? "Model itself is charged....no impact hits" does not refer to a negation of impact hits, but rather an avoidance of impact hits when the chariot etc. is not charging.
If the "negate impact hits with both sides charging" holds sway, then the ruling of "both sides get the benefits of charging if both are charging" rule on pg 58 is negated.
The way to harmonize this (that is, have all the rules make sense) is that impact hits are not negated by a counter charge, but that the counter charging unit does not suffer impact hits. That does not violate any RAW - although it does violate "Rules As Read" .... namely, the concept that a unit charging a chariot does not suffer impact hits means a chariot both charging and charged loses its impact hits, in violation of pg 58's rules.
Ultimately, there IS no rule-as-written on this - because there is no explicit declaration of what happens to impact hits on a counter charge. There are two rules which state that units which BOTH charge get the benefits of charging, and that a unit charged does not get the benefits of impact hits. These two rules are incompatible - unless we assume that "being charged" means "being charged by a specific unit while not charging that unit oneself".
I think that is a fair ruling, and is just as RAW when it comes to counter charge as anything else.
I am also prepared to have a tuppence bet on the FAQ - if this question is addressed at all - coming down on the side of "chariot charging a parent unit and counter charged by a detachment = chariot does impact hits on the parent, not on the detachment, and detachment does impact hits on chariot [assuming it had the rule]".
FAQ, not errata. Erratas change rules. FAQs clarify.
Is anyone willing to take a tuppence bet on that? Because if you are not it kind of suggests you know the rule ISN'T like that, not really - but that sloppy wording and arguments can make it SEEM like that.
C'mon - there's 2p in this for you!
-
I am very interested in a ruling and will be writing a nice letter this weekend and sending it to Games Development team on Page 512 of the BRB. Hopefully a nice hand written letter will force a FAQ in either the 8th edition rules or be clarified in the Empire FAQ.
I'll bookmark this lovely topic and respond back when an answer is released by GW.
Cheers
-Cursain
-
I'd totally bet good money that detachments do not negate impact hits. Hope the FAQ.
-
I'd totally bet good money that detachments do not negate impact hits. Hope the FAQ.
It won't get F.A.Qed because its not a rules question. While not clearly organized printed the rules are there.
-
If you are arguing that this is an impact hit rule than the rules are crystal clear
IMPACT HITS (pg 71)
Some models notably chariots have so much impetus that they cause considerable damage when they crash into the enemy. To represent this, those models cause impact hits.
Resolving Impact Hits
Impact hits are only made on the turn the model charges into close combat. If the model with impact hits is itself charged, or is fighting a second or subsequent round of combat, then this rule gives no benifit
I'm gonna say this is clearly as i can now, this debate is getting silly.
Your arguement is simple. You say "If a model with impact hits is itself charged.. this rule gives no benefit"
p58 says "This might result in both sides having charging units on both sides will get the normal bonuses conferred by charging (eg causing impact hits, benefiting from a lance's Strength bonus, etc. and other bonuses described later in the this rules section."
So, by looking at both sections.. A chariot that has charged (as a persue/ overrun move is counted as a new charge), and is in turn charged itself, will -still- get it's charge bonuses, specifically impact hits. The brb states this specifically.
This means that the BRB gives an explicit example of a charged chariot still causing impact hits; which proves that charging a chariot is not enough to negate the impact hits it does.
..........................................................................
It is clear to me now, that the rule stating that a charged unit loses impact hits is only applicable to when that unit is charged in the first instance ie, your knights charge a chariot.. the chariot does not get impact hits. If the chariot makes a charge move in any way, it gains impact hits; regardless of what happens after the fact
Hetelic
-
This means that the BRB gives an explicit example of a charged chariot still causing impact hits; which proves that charging a chariot is not enough to negate the impact hits it does.
Actually I think the problem is that the brb has two rules clearly in conflict. My opinion on which way it was intended is fairly unimportant. I can see the confusion when pg 58 says yes you get impact hits, and page 71 says no you don't get impact hits.
-
Actually I think the problem is that the brb has two rules clearly in conflict. My opinion on which way it was intended is fairly unimportant. I can see the confusion when pg 58 says yes you get impact hits, and page 71 says no you don't get impact hits.
No, your opinion is HUGELY important - it determines what will happen in any given game (assuming application of RAW).
You state (correctly) there are two rules which are in conflict (I challenge "clearly" because I don't think they are in conflict at all, and so do others, so it can't be all that clear). But there are two rules which say different things. These can, however, be harmonized.
However, harmonization requires RAR (Rules As Read) or RAI. And that is where your opinion comes in.
Unless you are in a tournament where this issue comes up and is decided by officials, and until there is an FAQ, you and your opponent must agree on what the answer is.
If you agree with your opponent, your choice is what happens.
If you disagree, dice are rolled and you have a 50% chance of getting your opinion.
In either case, your opinion is VASTLY important.
-
My opinion carries no additional weight then that of my opponent or that of a TO in the context of a game.
One rule tells me yes, one rule tells me no. I cannot objectively conclude which is the accurate rule. I can form an opinion and argue it, but I cannot be proved right. rules should be black and white, rules that are open to interpretation are not rules, they are instead suggestions.
-
My opinion carries no additional weight then that of my opponent or that of a TO in the context of a game.
But that isn't what you originally said - you said it is fairly unimportant. The opinion of the players is very important - relatively, yours is no more important than your opponent's, but 50% of the importance is still important.
One rule tells me yes, one rule tells me no.
As demonstrated above, there are definite arguments to suggest the two rules are not in conflict, but entirely harmonious. The rule of "if charged does not get impact hits" is clearly - and demonstrably - not a universal rule which applies to ALL situations, as there is a specific situation where a chariot can be charged and yet get impact hits (if both sides are charging).
Accordingly, one has to decide if the "does not get impact hits" means "does not get at all (except in the situation which is an exception" or "does not get against the unit which is charging it".
Again, we just have to wait for this to be FAQ'd. My bet still stands, if anyone wants to take it. If people are absolutely certain counter-charging detachments will negate the impact hits against a parent unit which is charged, then why not put 2p on it? :)
-
I think the bottom line is this: We have two sections of the BRB containing rules on how to resolve this. The first on page 58 says that "A" happens. The second on page 71 could be interpreted that either "A" or "B" happen. When you have that situation how could you not go with the "A" ruling? To suppose that "B" is the correct course means you have to completely ignore the first rule, which is obviously wrong.
-
There is no need for a FAQ/Errata on this. It is clearly in the rules... The posters stating that if the Chariot is charged it doesn't get impact hits. I understand their logic even if it does feel like some 'win-at-all-cost approach....
HOWEVER
Our detachments in the situations identified don't charge the chariots. They COUNTER CHARGE, so it doesn't negate impact hits as the chariots weren't charged... they were counter-charged which is a different rule.
-
" If a counter charge action is declared, the detachment makes an out of sequence move that is resolved as if it had just declared a charge against the charging unit" "the enemy does not get to make any charge reactions against a counter charge, but otherwise all the normal charging rules and bonuses apply"
There is no need for a FAQ/Errata on this. It is clearly in the rules... The posters stating that if the Chariot is charged it doesn't get impact hits. I understand their logic even if it does feel like some 'win-at-all-cost approach....
HOWEVER
Our detachments in the situations identified don't charge the chariots. They COUNTER CHARGE, so it doesn't negate impact hits as the chariots weren't charged... they were counter-charged which is a different rule.
-
redflag since you are so sure of this why you bother asking and debating?
the majority, me included, do not believe this thing is actually possible. this is just pure abuse and i really believe that you will not find any opponent who will agree with this. tournaments will propably reject this as well.
-
Is this another fact or your opinion about this thing actually being possible? I understand your opposition to this rule which is based upon a previous use of 6th and 7th edition rules.
However its not like the chariot cannot choose to charge the detachment rather than the parent unit To state that this rule is broken seems like someone not willing to use tactics and strategy. Its not like the rules state that you cannot charge detachments but must charge the parent unit and a counter charge from the detachment that you are not allowed to charge removes impact hits.
And unlike the 7th edition version of the empire charging the detachment will cause a panic check on the parent unit if the detachment breaks from combat that the parent unit is not involved in.
That was the whole original point of my post which was to devise a tactic to allow a detachment to use this tactic without being easy prey to being charged by the chariot and causing a panic check on the parent unit. I hear people screaming that the sky is falling yet they don't see the obvious solution to this new ability granted to a detachment which is to use the old double team the parent and detachment at the same time tactic.
redflag since you are so sure of this why you bother asking and debating?
the majority, me included, do not believe this thing is actually possible. this is just pure abuse and i really believe that you will not find any opponent who will agree with this. tournaments will propably reject this as well.
-
think of it this way.
a chariots charges a unit of greatswords (has a detachmet).
the detachment countercharges.
does it seem logical to you that the chariot will somehow lose its speed from the charge and will generate any impact hits?
and gameswise:
technically the chariot charges first since the counter charge takes place after charges have been resolved.
trust me im all in for tactics but this does not llok like a tactic this is abuse and wishlisting.
AND I REALLY THINK THAT WE SHOULD ASK THIS TO BE IN THE FAQ SO THE DEBATE CAN END
-
There is no need for an FAQ. redflag just needs to shut up with this nonsense, and the rest of you needs to stop debating this. What's next, someone arguing that our knights don't get a 1+ AS because the plate entry says 4+? Right.
-
RAW is clear, no impact hits. I wouldn't play it this way though, because I highly doubt it's intended.
-
I agree the rule is clear, impact hits are resolved on the Regimental unit and not on the charging detatchment.
-
You just have to ask yourself : Was it intended that way?
Do they want a countercharge to cancel impact hits?
So, if you think yes and your opponent thinks yes too, then you two can play it that way and can be sure to have fun.
If you think no and your opponent thinks no too, then you two can play it that way and can be sure to have fun.
If your or your opponents view differ on that matter you should talk about it before the game starts and make clear what way you will play it.
Because... even if the guys who say impact hits MUST be canceled because it is IN THE RULES (what it is, no argue on that) are right, they have to admit that a lot of people read this rule differently and don't think it was intended that way.
So in the spirit of sportmansship and to have a fair and fun game you should make clear how to play that rule before the game, no matter what you think is wrong or right.
At least till an FAQ tells us exactly what they intended with that rule.
-
RAW is clear, no impact hits. I wouldn't play it this way though, because I highly doubt it's intended.
From reading the rules it seems clear that you don't get the impact hits.
However, I'm certain it wasn't intended this way.
This won't stop it being played as written in tournaments.
You get to decide how you play it.
-
Wow, I am honestly not sure how people can read those rules and think that the chariot gets no impact hits at all.
Page 71 is saying that if the chariot is charged (ie the Chariot did not charge anything, but was itself charged) it gets no impact hits. It's an introduction to what impact hits are is telling us what they are, and that to get them you have to be charging. You don't get them on the first turn of every combat, only if you charge. OK, deep breath....
So...... what happens when a chariot is charged AND is also charging in the same combat on the same turn? If the rules on page 71 were the only rules about impact hits and combats where both sides may count as charging, I would agree RAW would tell you the chariot gets no impact hits. It's still a good bit of rules lawyering though, since honestly, if you read the whole text and realize what the rules are saying you will see they are telling you that impact hits apply when a chariot is charging. That sentence about impact hits having no effect was NOT written in regards to a unit charging a charging chariot.
Now, even if you can't grasp that, and still think that a chariot should get no impact hits....
We have page 58 which states that when that happens (multiple units from both sides having charged into the same combat) all units count as charging and get whatever bonuses that implies. They specifically mention impact hits! How is that not clear?
The only way you can come to the conclusion that the chariot gets no impact hits at all is by ignoring the rules on page 58. Ironic since those that are trying to say impact hits are completely negated keep saying it's RAW. it's only RAW (and barely) if you ignore half the rules about the topic.
Sheesh.
-
4+ for plate Then you get +1 for a shield then you get +1 for mounted then you get +1 for bared that comes up to 1+. This all happens to be in the rule book by the way.
There is no need for an FAQ. redflag just needs to shut up with this nonsense, and the rest of you needs to stop debating this. What's next, someone arguing that our knights don't get a 1+ AS because the plate entry says 4+? Right.
-
For example lets say in turn 1 my goblins charge a unit of empire swordsmen and my chariot overruns into the swordsmen after combat is resolved with my goblins. That means my chariot will fight in turn 2
..............Goblins
Chariot-)Swordsmen
In turn 2 my opponent's empire knights charge into my goblins
..............Goblins(--Knights
Chariot-)Swordsmen
During the combat phase since my Chariot was not charged it gets impact hits and the Knights get their lance +2 strenght
On the other hand if the Knights charged into my chariot during turn 2
...............Goblins
Chariot-)Swordsmen
Knights
Then my Chariot does not get its overrun impact hits on turn 2.
So...... what happens when a chariot is charged AND is also charging in the same combat on the same turn? If the rules on page 71 were the only rules about impact hits and combats where both sides may count as charging, I would agree RAW would tell you the chariot gets no impact hits. It's still a good bit of rules lawyering though, since honestly, if you read the whole text and realize what the rules are saying you will see they are telling you that impact hits apply when a chariot is charging. That sentence about impact hits having no effect was NOT written in regards to a unit charging a charging chariot.
Now, even if you can't grasp that, and still think that a chariot should get no impact hits....
We have page 58 which states that when that happens (multiple units from both sides having charged into the same combat) all units count as charging and get whatever bonuses that implies. They specifically mention impact hits! How is that not clear?
The only way you can come to the conclusion that the chariot gets no impact hits at all is by ignoring the rules on page 58. Ironic since those that are trying to say impact hits are completely negated keep saying it's RAW. it's only RAW (and barely) if you ignore half the rules about the topic.
Sheesh.
-
You are reading something that is not there, and making up a rule all by yourself in an attempt to gain an advantage.
You are taking page 71 out of context and ignoring the VERY SIMPLE rules on page 58. What you are doing is this, in plain english:
Your example uses only the rules on page 71. It completely ignores page 58. It does not say on page 58 that there is an exception if the chariot is charged while charging or just in the same combat. The burden of proof is on you to show me a rule that specifically states that the rule on page 58 does not apply if the charoit is charged.
Guess what? There isn't one. You are trying to make the two sections about impact hits contradictory when they are not. They work TOGETHER, and if you would read page 71 in its entirety and in context I think you would see that.
And stop quoting only part of my posts when I already explained why your example is wrong in the first part of my last one.
-
I think a better way of putting it is that your example could fly if you read just page 71. It breaks the rule on page 58. I will repeat that since you keep saying the same thing over and over. Your example breaks the rule on page 58. So in your example one of them is wrong and need to be FAQ'd. What makes more sense is to read page 71 in context and realize that they don't have to contradict each other.
Even if you still disagree do you at least understand that your interpretation of the rule on page 71 is in contradiction to page 58?
-
" If a counter charge action is declared, the detachment makes an out of sequence move that is resolved as if it had just declared a charge against the charging unit" "the enemy does not get to make any charge reactions against a counter charge, but otherwise all the normal charging rules and bonuses apply"
There is no need for a FAQ/Errata on this. It is clearly in the rules... The posters stating that if the Chariot is charged it doesn't get impact hits. I understand their logic even if it does feel like some 'win-at-all-cost approach....
HOWEVER
Our detachments in the situations identified don't charge the chariots. They COUNTER CHARGE, so it doesn't negate impact hits as the chariots weren't charged... they were counter-charged which is a different rule.
Right, and a special ability that is resolved as shooting isn't the same as a shooting attack. Counter Charge and Charge are clearly different rules even if they follow a very similar format. The rules you quote don't say "If a model causing impact hits is counter-charged the rule does not apply."
-
Again; the 2p bet stands.
If the final rules as interpreted by GW (which is what matters, not this asinine "Rules As Written" thing - because there is no "Rules as Written", there is only "Rules as Interpreted by people" - without a person the rules won't result in a game) are that counter-charging by detachment negates impact hits on a parent unit, there is 2p in it for someone willing to take the bet.
And the fact NO-ONE is willing to do this is . . . instructive.
Obviously, 2p is a small amount of money - a mere triffle. But the point of the bet holds - put your money where your mouth is. We have people arguing for a particular interpretation, and that it is "clear" and that it is reasonable and fair etc. etc. Well, if it is all that - why not be certain the FAQ will decide in your favor?
So, again - here is the bet; 2p on the FAQ or other official GW publication (such as errata, reprint of the army book etc.) when (and if) it decides it coming down on the ruling that counter-charing detachments do NOT negate impact hits on parent unit. I win the 2p if they DO NOT negate 'em and you win if they DO negate them.
Unless you have some moral compunction against a bet (which I understand) not taking it is a simple revelation of yourself as a contraryian troll.
-
Or people honestly don't consider their time worth using paypal or mail to sent 2p.
-
I didn't want "to be a Romney" and offer a bet of actual worth, but if that is the issue (and I really don't think it is - I think the issue is the embarasment) someone is more than welcome to suggest a different bet.
-
Redflag your wrong, if you try to pull that one in game I hope your opponent gives you a smack over the back of the head.
The rules werent written with detachments in mind but there is a clear example of a unit having overrun into a new unit and being charged before any impact hits can be resolved. In this case the unit gets its impact hits. This example can be directly compared to a counter charge.
Now lets stop this nonsence and let the thread die.
-
So let me get this strait you post a bet of 2 pence and expect me to take you on your bet ..ok. I make my salary in dollars but I am assuming that 2 pence is around a dollar or so. Funny you make a post and since no one takes you up on it within a hour means that no one is willing to take you up on it right? Just for that I am willing to bet 30 seconds of my salary to prove you wrong (which by the way is more than a dollar).
Again; the 2p bet stands.
If the final rules as interpreted by GW (which is what matters, not this asinine "Rules As Written" thing - because there is no "Rules as Written", there is only "Rules as Interpreted by people" - without a person the rules won't result in a game) are that counter-charging by detachment negates impact hits on a parent unit, there is 2p in it for someone willing to take the bet.
And the fact NO-ONE is willing to do this is . . . instructive.
Obviously, 2p is a small amount of money - a mere triffle. But the point of the bet holds - put your money where your mouth is. We have people arguing for a particular interpretation, and that it is "clear" and that it is reasonable and fair etc. etc. Well, if it is all that - why not be certain the FAQ will decide in your favor?
So, again - here is the bet; 2p on the FAQ or other official GW publication (such as errata, reprint of the army book etc.) when (and if) it decides it coming down on the ruling that counter-charing detachments do NOT negate impact hits on parent unit. I win the 2p if they DO NOT negate 'em and you win if they DO negate them.
Unless you have some moral compunction against a bet (which I understand) not taking it is a simple revelation of yourself as a contraryian troll.
-
Redflag your wrong, if you try to pull that one in game I hope your opponent gives you a smack over the back of the head.
Yep, you "good sportsmen" types are doing a great job at winning me over.
Your all jerks, I'm calling you on it.
-
So let me get this strait you post a bet of 2 pence and expect me to take you on your bet ..ok. I make my salary in dollars but I am assuming that 2 pence is around a dollar or so.
Closer to 5c.
Funny you make a post and since no one takes you up on it within a hour means that no one is willing to take you up on it right?
It was originally made a day or so ago. People holding the view posted afterwards.
Just for that I am willing to bet 30 seconds of my salary to prove you wrong (which by the way is more than a dollar).
Was that a humble brag? :)
No problem - so; the bet is (to confirm) ... that when (and if) this is addressed in the FAQ ....
if the ruling in this situation is that a counter-charge by a detachment negates the impact hits of a chariot etc. against a parent unit you win 2p (or equivalent trifle of money).
if the ruling in this situation is that a counter-charge by a detachment does NOT negate the impact hits of a chariot etc. against a parent unit I win the trifle of money.
Fair?
-
You are quite arrogant. I had no idea of what a pence is so I wanted to make a trivial bet. I thought 30 seconds of a person's salary is a trivial amount. It was not meant to be a brag. And yes I accept your bet.
So let me get this strait you post a bet of 2 pence and expect me to take you on your bet ..ok. I make my salary in dollars but I am assuming that 2 pence is around a dollar or so.
Closer to 5c.
Funny you make a post and since no one takes you up on it within a hour means that no one is willing to take you up on it right?
It was originally made a day or so ago. People holding the view posted afterwards.
Just for that I am willing to bet 30 seconds of my salary to prove you wrong (which by the way is more than a dollar).
Was that a humble brag? :)
No problem - so; the bet is (to confirm) ... that when (and if) this is addressed in the FAQ ....
if the ruling in this situation is that a counter-charge by a detachment negates the impact hits of a chariot etc. against a parent unit you win 2p (or equivalent trifle of money).
if the ruling in this situation is that a counter-charge by a detachment does NOT negate the impact hits of a chariot etc. against a parent unit I win the trifle of money.
Fair?
-
Hey, sorry if I came across that way. But a salary of more than $120 an hour is pretty high, which is what is stated by "30 seconds of my salary ... (which by the way is more than a dollar)." That seems like bragging to me - assuming a 40 hour work week and 50 weeks a year with 2 weeks unpaid vacation, you make at least $240,000 a year.
Dunno about anyone else - but that's a brag as far as I'm concerned. That's a lot of money.
-
I am not bragging you are the one who brought up a monetary bet and lets leave it at that. Also I do not work 50 weeks a year.
Hey, sorry if I came across that way. But a salary of more than $120 an hour is pretty high, which is what is stated by "30 seconds of my salary ... (which by the way is more than a dollar)." That seems like bragging to me - assuming a 40 hour work week and 50 weeks a year with 2 weeks unpaid vacation, you make at least $240,000 a year.
Dunno about anyone else - but that's a brag as far as I'm concerned. That's a lot of money.
-
I do not work 50 weeks a year.
At $120 a hour, you don't need to :)
Let's wait for the FAQ; its very clear that there are different ways of interpreting the rules as written, and it's obviously not going to be settled without one.
-
Okay, we're wasting time here. redflag isn't going to accept defeat. Many of his fellow Empire players agree he is misinterpreting the rule and I think he's going to have a hard time convincing other non-Empire players as well. Rather than have this deteriorate, I'd suggest waiting for the FAQ at this point if you want to try to employ redflag's interpretation unless you can convince your opponent otherwise.
-
You might be wasting your time; but I have 2p in this!
Two whole pence, sir! Tuppence!
Why, in my day, that would buy you a tuppence-worth of . . . well, anything.
-
Redflag your wrong, if you try to pull that one in game I hope your opponent gives you a smack over the back of the head.
Yep, you "good sportsmen" types are doing a great job at winning me over.
Your all jerks, I'm calling you on it.
If by jerks you mean i think rules lawyers that bend rules to the point of breaking, intentionally misread stuff or disregard anything countering their flawed way of looking at things should recieve a slap then yes im a total bawbag.
-
Then we have a bet. :-) I have sent you a private message with my email.
I do not work 50 weeks a year.
At $120 a hour, you don't need to :)
Let's wait for the FAQ; its very clear that there are different ways of interpreting the rules as written, and it's obviously not going to be settled without one.
-
I've got it, thanks. I'm sure everyone here will keep us honest :)
-
The guy who wrote this
Page 71 of the rule book "If the model with impact hits is itself charged, or is fighting a second or subsequent round of combat, then this rule gives no benefit"
could not consider this
" If a counter charge action is declared, the detachment makes an out of sequence move that is resolved as if it had just declared a charge against the charging unit" "the enemy does not get to make any charge reactions against a counter charge, but otherwise all the normal charging rules and bonuses apply"
because it wasn't written yet. Conversely, whether Mr Cruddace fully considered the implications of the wording of the rules is at least doubtful.
-
At the end of the day it is Mr. Cuddace's responsibility and not ours to make his intentions clear as well as consider the implications of his ruleset. Maybe he intended this and maybe not. Its not like one can say for sure that he intended for Empire detachments to cause panic checks on all units within 6 inches (unlike the 7th edition Empire Army book) but that is what is in the new army book. Maybe he considered the implications of this and maybe he did not, but I am assuming that he intended to weaken empire detachments in order to offset this big bonus that we now get from them.
There is at least one other example of the special abilities of a model within the 8th edition rulebook being removed by the type of charge that detachments make (the parry save). Did Mr Cuddac consider the implications of what he wrote for this other example? I am assuming so but I cannot say for certain.
The guy who wrote this
Page 71 of the rule book "If the model with impact hits is itself charged, or is fighting a second or subsequent round of combat, then this rule gives no benefit"
could not consider this
" If a counter charge action is declared, the detachment makes an out of sequence move that is resolved as if it had just declared a charge against the charging unit" "the enemy does not get to make any charge reactions against a counter charge, but otherwise all the normal charging rules and bonuses apply"
because it wasn't written yet. Conversely, whether Mr Cruddace fully considered the implications of the wording of the rules is at least doubtful.
-
Well, since we are talking about responsibility, and without meaning any offense, I consider it the responsibility of both players to make the game an enjoyable experience.
Which for me it won't be if I face somebody who tries to pull rules interpretations like these.
-
I personally see both both sides and personally favour neither.
Although in practice I would go with letting my opponent get the impact hits as I prefer letting unresolved rules favour my opponent (this rule is hardly "favouring" anyway) as it prevents unwanted rule arguments which are the bane of most friendly matches.
I'm looking forward to the official answer.
-
My honest opinion is that one must decide if he or she wants to specialize in hermeneutics or play a wargame. If the first he or she is most welcome to make elaborate close reading of the rulebook, finding badly worded parts to expoit in his or her interpretation. If the later he or she should concentrate on winning the game by the rules everybody agreed on. Insisting on a private rule interpretation ruins the fun of gaming.
-
Great Discussion All :biggriin:
The new book is still a mystery to me 4 games in and I hadn't considered this.
Seems like an interesting idea to me. I hear you guys on both sides though, for sure! :eusa_clap:
Annoying rule interpretation, and a little un-fun for any opponent. Doesn't make a tone visual / thematic sense either.
And yet....it seems there is at least an argument for it the way the rule is written, these are the latest rules, and meant to mesh with the old (and would fit in nicely with the new strictly defensive role of detachments). I say ask your opponent how they feel about it, the rule should stand for itself clear enough if it's true. But I reeeeaaallly can't wait for the FAQ....I still say there's an argument that mortars cause multiple wounds for the whole template and only 'fire' like a stone thrower......WHERE'S THAT FAQ :eusa_wall:
-
Amazing. Welcome back to the world of selective rule book reading :eusa_clap:
It's the Steadfast argument (will be FAQ'd), Ironblasters can stand and shoot (has been FAQ'd), and Untyped spells can be cast into combat (needs to be FAQ'd cuz WoC generals can be fools) nonsence all over again.
Redflag and gang are cherry picking one rule (pg 71) and ignoring the rest (pg 58). Though amazingly if you apply ALL the rules you get this:
Chariot Impact hits the Regiment (+1 CR and Impact hits).
Detachment counter-charges (+1 CR and maybe flank +1CR and takes no Impact hits)
Because see nothing happens here to change the reality that the Chariot (or Mournfangs or Ogre Bulls) actually Charged and the unit it Charged get's impacted. Now apply the rule on page 71 to the Detachment counter charging and you get negated impact hits on the Detachment.
So simple even an Orc Elector Count should figure it out :wink:. (Of course, that's assuming he wants to, methinks not.)
Noght
-
Once again people are entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts. It is a fact that I have twice within this forum posting given examples of how page 58 meshes with page 71.
Amazing. Welcome back to the world of selective rule book reading :eusa_clap:
It's the Steadfast argument (will be FAQ'd), Ironblasters can stand and shoot (has been FAQ'd), and Untyped spells can be cast into combat (needs to be FAQ'd cuz WoC generals can be fools) nonsence all over again.
Redflag and gang are cherry picking one rule (pg 71) and ignoring the rest (pg 58). Though amazingly if you apply ALL the rules you get this:
Chariot Impact hits the Regiment (+1 CR and Impact hits).
Detachment counter-charges (+1 CR and maybe flank +1CR and takes no Impact hits)
Because see nothing happens here to change the reality that the Chariot (or Mournfangs or Ogre Bulls) actually Charged and the unit it Charged get's impacted. Now apply the rule on page 71 to the Detachment counter charging and you get negated impact hits on the Detachment.
So simple even an Orc Elector Count should figure it out :wink:. (Of course, that's assuming he wants to, methinks not.)
Noght
-
Once again people are entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts. It is a fact that I have twice within this forum posting given examples of how page 58 meshes with page 71.
Yes and thrice you've failed to apply page 58 (I'm not sure it that's an opinion or a fact, hmm, so confusing). You're using 71 to override it which most have said you can't do. You're quoting it just not using it which seems strange.
Impact hits on the Regiment, No impact hits on the counter-charging Detachment satisfies ALL the rules (Don't forget all the CR for all the charges). No impact hits on the Regiment and Detachment only satisfied the "cherry picked" ruling on page 71 (is that your opinion or have I factually summarized your wrong position, hmm, once again so confusing).
*Added*: All you need to do (as the rest of us did) is add this to the sentence on page 71 "then this rule gains no benefit vs the charging unit" (feel free to ignore the second and subsequent round of combat part because that ain't what's happening.
Noght
-
I read the start of this thread, and noticed the large ugly blue monkey running rampant in the post!!!! ::heretic:: Been a long while since Ive seen a blue monkey that large, and repulsive. I ran off to get my "monkey basher hammer of pure awesomeness and eternal bliss in a sin free hart".
Im back, Im armed and Im very very dangerous If you meet me in real life when Im armed with my monkey basher. It makes you reproduction organ shrink with each bash. Unfortunately it does not work in text forums.
-
*Added*: All you need to do (as the rest of us did) is add this to the sentence on page 71 "then this rule gains no benefit vs the charging unit" (feel free to ignore the second and subsequent round of combat part because that ain't what's happening.
Noght
See if it had that line 'vs the charging unit' it would be easily resolved, but it doesn't. Still I feel like that's how it was meant to be understood.
-
*Added*: All you need to do (as the rest of us did) is add this to the sentence on page 71 "then this rule gains no benefit vs the charging unit" (feel free to ignore the second and subsequent round of combat part because that ain't what's happening.
Noght
See if it had that line 'vs the charging unit' it would be easily resolved, but it doesn't. Still I feel like that's how it was meant to be understood.
In all seriousness (for the first time maybe), isn't that what you have to do when you apply the rules. All these arguments occur when people "cherry pick" a rule or line of a rule and use to disregard all other rules or parts of rules they don't like.
Back to the OP. Rule for Impact hits are clear. Rules for two or more units all charging and resolved in the same combat phase (page 58) and they all get bonus' from Lances, Flails, Impact, and Combat Rez are also clear. Rule regarding charging an Impact Hit causing unit are also clear, i.e. the charger is immune to the Impact Hit Special Rule. What it doesn't say is a previously charged unit Impacted (i.e. it was legally charged) is now immune to to the Impact Hits. It only happens because people are ignoring page 58 in favor of 71, i.e "cherry picking".
The RAW, RAI and common sense of timing and sequencing all work here without all this Rule Lawyering or wringing of hands. Of course I thought the Steadfast argument was clear and we see where that ended up.
Noght
-
I read the ...blah....blah.....large ugly blue monkey ....blah....blah.....::heretic:: ...............blah.......blah........"monkey basher hammer ........blah.......blah......... sin free hart".
Im back.............blah...............blah............Im armed with my monkey basher..........blah.........organ shrink with each bash. ..............blah........blah...........forums.
Are you paraphrasing a cool character speech from a Starcraftey Zerg Leader cut scene or something, because I can never understand what you're trying to say. I'm sure there was a point somewhere but I couldn't find it. :icon_confused: Way to add insight to the conversation. :roll:
Noght
-
Rules for two or more units all charging and resolved in the same combat phase (page 58) and they all get bonus' from Lances, Flails, Impact, and Combat Rez are also clear.
Noght
Well you have me convinced. If multiple combat chargers all get their bonuses then chariots should get theirs.
This of course is how I've always played it, but nonetheless we need to be clear.
-
oh my... Been away for a long weekend Eurobash and some extra days only skimming a few topics and this topic exploded with 2 more pages (and I got max posts per page option on..) Finally some sense in the whole matter by the page 58 summary and still it's debated on that it will cancel out the impact hits...
I think it is clear now as it is mentioned and anything else in this thread is just invoking trolling and flaming... time to lock it down?
-
Probably, yeah. The point has been made, the rule has been clarified, and at this point we're reduced to arguing whether a post about blue monkeys made sense. :icon_lol: