Topic: Optimal detachment and tactics for anti chariot impact hit defense

[redflag]

" 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.

[RockabillGR]

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.

[redflag]

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.

[RockabillGR]

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

[Lord Solar Plexus]

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.

[Souppilgrim]

RAW is clear, no impact hits.  I wouldn't play it this way though, because I highly doubt it's intended.

[jhig]

I agree the rule is clear, impact hits are resolved on the Regimental unit and not on the charging detatchment.

[Kolberg]

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.

[Athiuen]

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.

[Dosiere]

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.

[redflag]

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.

[redflag]

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.

[Dosiere]

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.

[Dosiere]

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?

[Bigglesworth]

" 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."

[Darknight]

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.

[Cursain]

Or people honestly don't consider their time worth using paypal or mail to sent 2p.

[Darknight]

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.

[DivineVisitor]

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.

[redflag]

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.

[CaptainChris]

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.

[Darknight]

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?

[redflag]

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?

[Darknight]

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.

[redflag]

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.