Can 9th just come out already?

[najo]

Is it really all that different than a pawn that finds itself past a piece on the board and cannot move diagonally backwards to take the piece?

The main difference is it is out of place for wargame tactics. That wouldn't happen on a battlefield.

 

[najo]

There are two things that mitigate Death Stars (the worse symptom of 8th, in my opinion): Unit size caps and half points for halfway destroyed units.

Both of those existed in 6th Edition. Changing unit caps requires adjusting the army books and picking which units need a cap, but half victory points for units that were brought below half their starting size is a simple fix that works across the board. And while it doesn't prevent your opponent from fielding a DS, it would mean that the 700 point, 60-man unit that you spent the entire game reducing to 10 men doesn't reward you with nothing.

100% agree on bringing back half victory points!

 

[najo]

@najo
Heh, I just call it as it is, mate.

George O'Connel brought a WoC list to the Crossroads GT

6 characters in a tzeentch warrior bunker supported by a Tz war shrine and two Slaanesh chariots. That was all he fielded.

Lol. Crazy. I totally get why too. Nasty filthy army. Wouldn't be very fun to play against. In fairness that's the exception, and chaos warriors are more the problem. That shrine shouldn't allow the manipulation of their table. Chariots shouldn't be core. Their daemon princes need tonning down. Tzeentch's mark needs to be adjusted.

 

[Seneschal]

I wouldn't call it the exception, mate. GT players have been doing it for years with various armies. The Shadestar, the Drakenhoff star, Superherd, Phoenix guard star, White Lions/Dragon Prince World Dragon units, 5th and 6th ed cav stars and so on

Some had more support units than others but they all had the same basic premise and level of annoyance for the opponent

I definitely agree that WoC needs to be toned down, GW has had an infatuation for them and Daemons for awhile now.
by giving them cost efficient units that are tough, well protected and hit hard they were able to sell a lot of models, which I totally get of course, but a little more balance would have gone a long way.

We'll see if ninth delivers some of that balance

 

[Infernal Skull]

Can someone explain the "double flee" shenanigans? I'm having a difficult time visualizing what you're talking about, or how it could prevent the charger from getting into contact with something.

(Maybe a diagram would help?)

Edit: Also, I don't think the skirmishers forming up out of LOS of the charger is a valid tactic. The rulebook says the skirmishing unit must form up about its centermost model in the front rank (so they can't all slide over to the extreme side). And even if they still somehow formed up out of the unit's charge arc, it doesn't matter anymore. The unit had LOS when it declared the charge, and as long as they can still reach them with the charge distance (measured closest point to closest point), they have unlimited move to get into base contact and close the door.

 

[TheTrans]

Ok, in the pic I've attached.

The charger Declares a charge on unit A, unit A declares flee and flees behind unit B, the charger cannot run into unit B as he hasn't declared a charge on it (and it isn't an overrun, pursue perse).

So the charger redirects his charge at unit B, who then in turn, flees behind Unit A, same issue occurs that the charger now cannot get into contact with unit B and is not allowed to touch Unit A...

Pretty shitful ey...

 

[najo]

I wouldn't call it the exception, mate. GT players have been doing it for years with various armies. The Shadestar, the Drakenhoff star, Superherd, Phoenix guard star, White Lions/Dragon Prince World Dragon units, 5th and 6th ed cav stars and so on

Some had more support units than others but they all had the same basic premise and level of annoyance for the opponent

I definitely agree that WoC needs to be toned down, GW has had an infatuation for them and Daemons for awhile now.
by giving them cost efficient units that are tough, well protected and hit hard they were able to sell a lot of models, which I totally get of course, but a little more balance would have gone a long way.

We'll see if ninth delivers some of that balance

Yeah, but all of those have counters and can be dealt with by an army with some more balance, likewise as you mentioned some of those armies had more support going on. Basically, if you can get 2-3 meaty units with the characters tonned down and then still destroy that death Star, you are going to win. And death stars are vulnerable to being controlled by combo charges, targeted by sniper effects, thinned down by nukes, weakened by hexes etc. That chaos one is nearly invincible and it creates daemon princes.

 

[Seneschal]

Most of those I listed were very difficult to eliminate in their respective eras. When more than half of the armies in the meta have trouble taking down a character heavy unit, it's a legit star, especially when people like me jump on a forum and whine about it being overpowered :tongue:

 

[Infernal Skull]

Ok, in the pic I've attached.

The charger Declares a charge on unit A, unit A declares flee and flees behind unit B, the charger cannot run into unit B as he hasn't declared a charge on it (and it isn't an overrun, pursue perse).

So the charger redirects his charge at unit B, who then in turn, flees behind Unit A, same issue occurs that the charger now cannot get into contact with unit B and is not allowed to touch Unit A...

Pretty shitful ey...

So... p18: "Normally, a unit can only declare a charge at a single enemy unit. However, if there is no way at all of completing the charge against an enemy unit without touching another (sometimes known as 'clipping') then the charging unit must also declare a charge against the other unit(s)."

The charger can play RAW: When the first unit flees, he has "no way at all of completing the the charge against an enemy unit without touching another." So, "the charging unit must also declare a charge against the other unit." Unit B, in this case.

Then unit B can hold or flee. If it flees, then the charger will contact unit A, which has already made its flee move and will be destroyed. If it holds, then the charger can kill it and pursue/ over run into fleeing unit A.

The rules as written exactly fit the definition of the circumstance, if not the intent. But both of these sides are against the spirit of the game, so fight douchebaggery with douchebaggery.

 

[TheTrans]

But you aren't charging A after it's first flee and following the redirect, therefore they don't need to declare a charge reaction as I don't believe you're allowed to hit them

 

[Archamedius]

The main difference is it is out of place for wargame tactics. That wouldn't happen on a battlefield.

Are you sure? I feel like I could very easily see a couple small groups of lightly armored cavalry "units" teasing a larger unit of infantry repeatedly attempting to bait a charge on a battlefield but continually running back when the infantry attempt to engage them.

Granted this is all a bunch of silly wargamers attempting to imagine what could or would happen on a battlefield a millennia ago.

I wouldn't call it the exception, mate. GT players have been doing it for years with various armies. The Shadestar, the Drakenhoff star, Superherd, Phoenix guard star, White Lions/Dragon Prince World Dragon units, 5th and 6th ed cav stars and so on

Some had more support units than others but they all had the same basic premise and level of annoyance for the opponent

I definitely agree that WoC needs to be toned down, GW has had an infatuation for them and Daemons for awhile now.
by giving them cost efficient units that are tough, well protected and hit hard they were able to sell a lot of models, which I totally get of course, but a little more balance would have gone a long way.

We'll see if ninth delivers some of that balance

I am really not sure how this list works? I get the idea that the warshrine gives an extra roll on the EOTG table at the start of the game, and allows a reroll when you would normally roll, but outside that its just a poor chariot with a 4+ ward save? A standard VC list with two terrorgheists seems like it would destroy that list. Save your dispel dice for gateway, almost all (if not all) his spells require like of sight, so once the terrorgheists get past his front arc (easy with flight) he has to expose his flank to you. Force him to engage dire wolves and zombies (units without a champion) so he cannot get his EOTG rolls until you have screamed off the chariots and warshrine. Then just scream the giant block to death. What am I missing that makes this list so tough?

So... p18: "Normally, a unit can only declare a charge at a single enemy unit. However, if there is no way at all of completing the charge against an enemy unit without touching another (sometimes known as 'clipping') then the charging unit must also declare a charge against the other unit(s)."

The charger can play RAW: When the first unit flees, he has "no way at all of completing the the charge against an enemy unit without touching another." So, "the charging unit must also declare a charge against the other unit." Unit B, in this case.

Then unit B can hold or flee. If it flees, then the charger will contact unit A, which has already made its flee move and will be destroyed. If it holds, then the charger can kill it and pursue/ over run into fleeing unit A.

The rules as written exactly fit the definition of the circumstance, if not the intent. But both of these sides are against the spirit of the game, so fight douchebaggery with douchebaggery.

The clipping section is for use when you would come into contact with both at the same time (See the word also), and in this case you only ever would end up in base with one of the fleeing units, unfortunately the incorrect unit as your last charge declared was against the one now behind the unit you can touch.

There is a very detailed description of how to make this work over on druchii.net. They even call out that is gamey/cheesy but very legal in the rules.

 

[Infernal Skull]

I'm getting into deep, literal interpretation here–

(BTW, I'm not arguing with you,Archamedius, just trying to make my point against people who would pull these shenanigans.)

"However, if there is no way at all of completing the charge against an enemy unit without touching another (sometimes known as 'clipping') then the charging unit must also declare a charge against the other unit(s)."

The sentence technically refers to any situation where the charging unit can't get to their target without touching another unit. The portion in parentheses doesn't affect the functionality of the sentence. It also contains the word 'sometimes' which means 'not always.' So this situation doesn't refer to clipping exclusively.

"However, if there is no way at all of completing the charge against an enemy unit without touching another then the charging unit must also declare a charge against the other unit."

It refers to any and every situation where the charging unit has no way at all of completing the charge against an enemy unit without touching another.

The word 'also' doesn't really prevent what I've described–

First: Once unit A flees, the charging unit now has no way at all of completing the charge against an enemy unit without touching another. True or false? True. The charging unit has no way of getting in contact without touching unit B (the 'another' in the rule text).

So now the second part of the rule comes into play: "the charging unit must also declare a charge against the other unit." It must (the rules demand it) declare a charge against that other unit (unit B). It has now also declared a charge against the other unit.

And keep in mind that this is all happening in the "declare charges" portion of the movement phase, so it's not like the opponent can argue that the opportunity to declare charges has passed. You declare a charge and resolve charge reactions, and declare the next charge, resolve any reaction, and repeat until all charges have been declared. Then you begin to move the charging units. (Charge Summary, p16)

The charging unit doesn't have to attempt to redirect after the target flees. They can opt to complete the charge against the first target. But now they can't complete the charge without contacting another enemy unit, so they are allowed to (and must) declare the charge against the other unit.

This really is following the exact letter of the rule. RAW, Brah! If all else fails, you can force the Most Important Rule, and roll off. Then you have a 50% chance of being right. And mark him with a low sportsmanship score. (The reason why I maintain soft scores are important– they help discourage people who would exploit shitty rules loopholes with their grey legion from participating.)

 

[Demian]

Charge-targetting could use a revamp:

Instead of selecting a unit and charging it (declaring a charge), they could add a "when the unit moves, anything that comes in btb contact with it is charged and gets into combat, even if the original target is no longer reachable"

The implications would be:

• Redirecting could take a more active roll here, they could make it so that the target unit could "flee" in any direction, not just away from it (when you choose to flee. Terror would have a chance to function much better!) so, once the final position of the fleeing unit is determined, then you proceed to use your "Free Wheel movement" to get into position and advance, having rolled the dice (AND if you didn't choose to Redirect, and start once more the same process.. but just once). This means, instead of parking a single unit in front of a massive deathstar and turn them from battle, units could activelly Redirect while fleeing, not being positioned in funny angles, like we do (I know this would hurt one of our best tactics... but I also find it kinda silly =P)
• Double-fleeing would be all about dice rolls: If both fleeing Units didn't roll well enough, one of them is going to get slaughtered, as it should be, if the chargers rolled well. This would set the "bait" distance to, at least the charger's M value, to get a Roll-against-roll situation.
• For all this, Undead units within their General's IP range should be able to function as the general sees fit (Tactical Fleeing), or Vampiric Units could as well (not Vargheists, since I suppose Frenzy would compel them to stay and fight. Only the General could force them to flee).
• Terror could have a much more entertaining rule: make the unit Flee "away" as normal, but if said unit is charged on the Flank / Rear, they'd realize the danger too late and the monster just needs to get in contact to auto-wound models in B2B contact... not destroying the whole unit altogether, which would lead us to:
• Catching a Fleeing unit should not evaporate it: I once had a 40+ Beastmen Horde DESTROYED by a 2 Fell Bats. They failed a Terror test and fled, then I combo-charged with said Fell Bat Unit, caught them and somehow all cows decided to just roll over and die. That was... hilarious. It could be made so models in the ensuing combat would just auto-hit (maybe not auto-wound) with their attacks, plus being disrupted for that round of combat. There is a lot they could play with here, making larger bases have an advantage not just having many more attacks directed at them.
• Last, getting rid of the "Can't close the door, there is no combat" fluke. If you can touch it, theire is combat. If you can't align base to base, then only a portion of your front rank (or maybe only the front rank) gets to attack, without supporting attacks, on both sides. Of course, Characters would make a huge diference here, but that would be the purpose of bottle-necking a big horde with other units, to make way for your characters to strike at the heart of the battle.

1. As a consequence, Unstable Units should not crumble as they do now =( but distribute "Crumble" wounds between units or something, not multiplying CR by the number of Unstable units involved in said combat...

I don't care these are just hopes, haha. I won't feel bad when they say: well this is 9th and none of that was even considered. So the new meta will have....

 

[Archamedius]

I'm getting into deep, literal interpretation here–

(BTW, I'm not arguing with you,Archamedius, just trying to make my point against people who would pull these shenanigans.)

"However, if there is no way at all of completing the charge against an enemy unit without touching another (sometimes known as 'clipping') then the charging unit must also declare a charge against the other unit(s)."

The sentence technically refers to any situation where the charging unit can't get to their target without touching another unit. The portion in parentheses doesn't affect the functionality of the sentence. It also contains the word 'sometimes' which means 'not always.' So this situation doesn't refer to clipping exclusively.

"However, if there is no way at all of completing the charge against an enemy unit without touching another then the charging unit must also declare a charge against the other unit."

It refers to any and every situation where the charging unit has no way at all of completing the charge against an enemy unit without touching another.

The word 'also' doesn't really prevent what I've described–

First: Once unit A flees, the charging unit now has no way at all of completing the charge against an enemy unit without touching another. True or false? True. The charging unit has no way of getting in contact without touching unit B (the 'another' in the rule text).

So now the second part of the rule comes into play: "the charging unit must also declare a charge against the other unit." It must (the rules demand it) declare a charge against that other unit (unit B). It has now also declared a charge against the other unit.

And keep in mind that this is all happening in the "declare charges" portion of the movement phase, so it's not like the opponent can argue that the opportunity to declare charges has passed. You declare a charge and resolve charge reactions, and declare the next charge, resolve any reaction, and repeat until all charges have been declared. Then you begin to move the charging units. (Charge Summary, p16)

The charging unit doesn't have to attempt to redirect after the target flees. They can opt to complete the charge against the first target. But now they can't complete the charge without contacting another enemy unit, so they are allowed to (and must) declare the charge against the other unit.

This really is following the exact letter of the rule. RAW, Brah! If all else fails, you can force the Most Important Rule, and roll off. Then you have a 50% chance of being right. And mark him with a low sportsmanship score. (The reason why I maintain soft scores are important– they help discourage people who would exploit shitty rules loopholes with their grey legion from participating.)

First I understand you are not arguing with me. Thank you though for clarifying it just in case.

Second, while I do not have my rule book in front of me, I am pretty sure it clearly states that in any case where the charging unit may not complete it's charge in base contact with the target of the charge, then it always counts as a failed charge. So since you would finish your charge in base with another unit instead of the original target, it becomes a failed charge.

 

[Blutsauger]

The problem with the double-flee tactic is that, after the two flee moves, you are still faced with a target that is well within range and arc, but are unable to charge it because of the mechanics of the rules. It's not a situation that should occur.

 

[Dragonet]

I think I understand... I don't play competitively though so I might need some help here.

If I read correctly, this rule should refer to two units roughly side by side; Unit A flees and the direction of charge and flight forces contact with Unit B; a charge is declared against Unit B, therefore if the charge connects it's successful against Unit B instead.

If Unit B is standing more behind Unit A, which elects to flee, then although a charge may be declared against Unit B, it'll probably fail due to distance; if Unit B also elects to flee then I suppose it's legitimate and both become viable targets depending on who's faster, but I'm lost at this point; hasn't a wing of the army just folded like a cheap suit for a unit that hasn't even charged yet?

Sure they probably won't make contact so they'll be left scratching their heads in the middle of the field, but they're free to move as they wish next turn; the opponent needs to rally 2 units and loses a lot of ground. I wouldn't try this with real men under my command...

 

[Blutsauger]

So the situation is that your black knight bus (black) has lined up a juicy flank charge on the enemies infantry block (Dark Green).

The enemy, in order to avoid losing their juicy unit, jams the space between your black knights and their infantry with two units of skirmishers (Light Green and Blue).

You declare a charge on the Light Green unit, and they flee. You redirect into the Blue unit. They flee. You are now mere inches away from the high value target of your enemies infantry block, but are unable to charge it because you can only redirect once per turn.

Similarly, an enemy can use double units of skirmishers or infantry to flee away from your deathstar units, effectively chaffing it up for an entire game with little or no cost to themselves.

 

[Alabaster427]

The following is my understanding of the sequence of events and how the rules pertain to them. So in this scenario, I would opt to not redirect and complete my charge on the first unit. The are likely within my base movement, so I get a bonus to the charge. They would roll 2d6 for flee and I would roll 3d6 (taking away the lowest) +8. My result will almost definitely be higher than the fleeing unit's result. As I understand the rules, because my result (minus the distance originally between us) beat their flee result, I would catch and destroy the unit, regardless of how "far" they got. For example, let's say the rolls and distances are like this: Black Knights are two inches away from light green, 5 " away from light blue, and 8" away from green, and I declare a charge against light green, they flee. I decide not to redirect, so we both roll for distance. Light Green gets a 7, which would normally put them on the other side of green. But I rolled a 7 also, so I add my movement which is 15. I would catch the unit. Now, I can't move to the other side of green, so (from my understanding), light green would be destroyed, and I would move as far as I could towards light blue.

My understanding of this is that both the rolls and movement for flee and charge happen at the same time; not roll for flee, move models, then roll for charge, move models. I don't know if this is accurate, but I've never been contested on this understanding (not that it comes up that often).

 

[Dragonet]

Aha, I was unaware of the 1 redirect per turn rule, that makes sense now. Personally I'd say if opponents are in rout, the unit should be able to pursue whoever they choose, it shouldn't matter in the heat of battle how many troops turn their bums to the enemy! Still, rules is rules...

 

[Infernal Skull]

See my comment above. Rules exploits are combated with other rules exploits. Don't redirect, use the RAW that you "cannot complete the charge without contacting another enemy unit" which allows (requires) you to declare a charge on the light blue unit. It's is not a redirect. That allows you to hit it, or cause it to flee and get the original unit, or if they both fled through the main block, redirect into it.

But this is yet another example of how 6th Edition was better– Fleeing units would run around any other units and panic-check anyone within 6" of them at the start of the turn. None of this "flee through" crap.

 

[Infernal Skull]

Alabaster, units breaking from combat & pursuing make the flee & pursue rolls at the same time. That's when the pursuit roll only needs to equal or beat the flee roll for them to be caught and killed.

When charging, you declare a charge, they make the reaction (either rolling to flee or taking the stand & shoot shots). Then you declare the next charge, they react, until you're finished declaring charges. Once the charges are all declared/ reactions resolved, then you roll your charge distances and move the chargers, one at a time, in any order you like.

So, the fleeing unit will have already moved its actual distance rolled, and you need to be able to reach it and make contact with your charging unit in order to complete the charge (wiping out the fleeing unit).

 

[Blutsauger]

See my comment above. Rules exploits are combated with other rules exploits. Don't redirect, use the RAW that you "cannot complete the charge without contacting another enemy unit" which allows (requires) you to declare a charge on the light blue unit. It's is not a redirect. That allows you to hit it, or cause it to flee and get the original unit, or if they both fled through the main block, redirect into it.

While I love fighting fire with fire, on the one hand it's simply not worth getting into an argument about it at a gaming table and on the other hand, the rule that might allow me to come into contact with the blue unit (cannot complete charge without contacting other unit) still wouldn't trigger because even if I come into contact with the blue unit, I'm still not going to be able to make contact with the light green unit (which is the target of my charge) and so the charge fails.

 

[LordTobiothan]

As far as I can tell you can exploit that further.

Declare a charge on the infantry block instead of the skirmish unit. You first might say you can't because the skirmish is in the way but that isn't true. It isnt possible to complete the charge without charging the skirmish unit in front so per raw you have to charge as well, if they flee then you can't complete the charge unless you also charge the second skirmish unit so per raw you charge them too and they can hold and get overrun or flee. Letting you complete the charge vs the initial infantry.

Common sense? No, RAW? yes. The rule was clearly made to cover when two units are standing next to each other and basically no other case.

 

[Infernal Skull]

But if the charging unit can only reach one of the targets it's declared against, it completes the charge against the one it can reach. (Example: You have a unit of 3 ogres. You declare a charge on a lone character with another lone character next to it, one inch apart. the only way to contact the charged character is to also touch the 2nd character, so you declare a charge on it as well. One character holds, the other flees. You can't reach the fled character, but can hit the one that held. No crazy shenanigans here. The charge doesn't fail; you simply complete against the one target that you can reach.)

In my example, after the first skirmisher flees, I cannot complete the charge without contacting another unit– The only possible moves to make contact are blocked by the unit it fled behind, so I literally "can't complete my charge without touching another enemy unit." The declaration of the charge was a legal declaration, but his placement and flee has resulted in this situation. Every move I would try would end up with me touching the other unit on the way in. Therefore, I must declare a charge against the blocking unit. If, after both charged units have resolved their reactions, I can't contact both, then I complete against the one that I can reach.

(Tobiothan, your example wouldn't work, because you can't declare a charge that's impossible to complete. There's no way to contact the green unit, so it can't be declared.)

 

[Blutsauger]

But if the charging unit can only reach one of the targets it's declared against, it completes the charge against the one it can reach. (Example: You have a unit of 3 ogres. You declare a charge on a lone character with another lone character next to it, one inch apart. the only way to contact the charged character is to also touch the 2nd character, so you declare a charge on it as well. One character holds, the other flees. You can't reach the fled character, but can hit the one that held. No crazy shenanigans here. The charge doesn't fail; you simply complete against the one target that you can reach.)

But the way it works, you completely resolve the charge reaction before moving any chargers. So if you declare a charge on the first character, and he flees, then (assuming the second character blocks the charge) it is simply a failed charge.

If the first character holds, and the second one flees, then you simply resolve the charge against the first character.

This allows you to pin one character in place, but is dependent on the opponent electing to hold with the first character, the target of the original charge.

In my example, after the first skirmisher flees, I cannot complete the charge without contacting another unit– The only possible moves to make contact are blocked by the unit it fled behind, so I literally "can't complete my charge without touching another enemy unit." The declaration of the charge was a legal declaration, but his placement and flee has resulted in this situation. Every move I would try would end up with me touching the other unit on the way in. Therefore, I must declare a charge against the blocking unit. If, after both charged units have resolved their reactions, I can't contact both, then I complete against the one that I can reach.

The key is that, even if you touch the other unit, you STILL can't complete the charge. This situation results in a failed charge. You can only declare on the second unit, if doing so would allow you to come into contact with the first unit. Or rather, in situations where NOT declaring a charge on the second unit would make it impossible to complete the original charge.

The way it works is:

Black declares a charge on Light Green, the only legal target. Light Green declares a flee reaction, rolls their distance, and moves directly away from Black.

Black checks to see if it can complete the charge move. It cannot. Even by coming into contact with another unit, it cannot complete the charge, therefore it is not able to declare a charge against Blue. It can, of course, redirect into Blue.