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

[Sig]

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 You're going to need more than simply requoting out of date rules.

[rothgar13]

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.

[redflag]

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.

[redflag]

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.

[Sig]

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.

[Bildskoene Bengtsson]

How some of you guys find people to play with I'll never understand...

[rothgar13]

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.

[Stiv]

I just wanted to say that last couple of RedFlag's posts have been hilarious 

Pure comedy gold! 

[Bildskoene Bengtsson]

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.

[Finne]

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.   

[Dbunibe]

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.

[redflag]

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.

[redflag]

" 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"

[commandant]

How is this still going

[Darknight]

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!

[Cursain]

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

[Syn Ace]

I'd totally bet good money that detachments do not negate impact hits. Hope the FAQ.

[PrinceofPleasure]

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.

[Hetelic]

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

[CaptainChris]

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.

[Darknight]

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.

[CaptainChris]

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.

[Darknight]

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?

[Dosiere]

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.

[Bigglesworth]

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.