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

[Darknight]

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.

[Syn Ace]

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.

[Darknight]

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.

[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.

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.

[redflag]

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.

[Darknight]

I've got it, thanks. I'm sure everyone here will keep us honest

[Gneisenau]

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.


 

[redflag]

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.

[Gneisenau]

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.

[Sanctus]

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.

[Botor]

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.

[Lord Roberts]

Great Discussion All   

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! 
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

[Noght]

Amazing.  Welcome back to the world of selective rule book reading 
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  .  (Of course, that's assuming he wants to, methinks not.)

Noght

[redflag]

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 
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  .  (Of course, that's assuming he wants to, methinks not.)

Noght

[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

[strollinthewoods]

I read the start of this thread, and noticed the large ugly blue monkey running rampant in the post!!!!   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.

[Athiuen]

*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.

[Noght]

*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

[Noght]

I read the ...blah....blah.....large ugly blue monkey ....blah....blah.....  ...............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.     Way to add insight to the conversation. 

Noght

[Athiuen]

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.

[StealthKnightSteg]

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?

[rothgar13]

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.