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

[Cursain]

Well said, sir.

+1 

[Finne]

So what do we do when both sides can't agree?  Roll a d6, I got a 4 what did you get?

[Hetelic]

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

[Syn Ace]

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.

[Cursain]

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.

[rothgar13]

I like these analogies! Now if only we could get a convincing FAQ one way or the other...

[Hetelic]

Doesn't need a FAQ. I'm wrong. They -will- get impact hits. BRB p58, bottom left hand corner

[satch]

well that does indeed seem clear as day! im glad this can now hopefully be put to rest

[rothgar13]

Yep, that'll do it. Good find.

[Sig]

For those of us at work, what does the quote from 58 say? Glad it can be put to rest anyway.

[Hetelic]

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.

[Cursain]

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.

[redflag]

With all due respect please quote exactly what you are talking about.

[Hetelic]

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.

[Sig]

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.

[redflag]

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.

[Sig]

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.

[Dosiere]

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.

[Cursain]

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.

[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.

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.

[Sig]

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.

[Darknight]

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".

[redflag]

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"

[Dosiere]

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. 

[redflag]

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.