| Flanking a Bell unit; How are folks playing this? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 14th January 2011 - 07:15 PM (260 Views) | |
| Rakashani | 14th January 2011 - 07:15 PM Post #1 |
|
Warlord
|
First, the rules I know and then the question. If you hit the rear of a unit models will "swing across the gap". They're not actually moved but you treat the last rank as being complete so in the situation below 5 of the clanrats ( c ) swing at the dwarf warriors behind them.
Now, the question. If you have a Bell (or a furnace) in a unit that has fewer than 5 ranks and you get flanked who do you swing with?
Our gaming group has been allowing the right-most file to swing at the bell as if it was in base contact (primarily because we can't find anything that would prevent it). Heck, according to the rules you could, in theory, charge in with the left edges aligned to allow two files to swing into the bell... So how does your group play it and does anyone know of a rule that would support an interpretation that prevents swinging across into the bell. |
![]() |
|
| ratboy1018 | 14th January 2011 - 08:45 PM Post #2 |
|
Lab rat hard at work
|
I would allow the emeny to attack the bell with no argument. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Player not found | 14th January 2011 - 09:05 PM Post #3 |
|
Clanrat
|
Hmm, I would think they can't, actually, even though for the sake of not being accused of trying to pull rules in my favor, I'd most likely say yes. Just imagine another situation : an infantry unit (20x20) juined by a mounted hero (25x50); this hero has to be all by himself on the side of the unit. Now if said unit is charged both in the front and back, are you going to imply that models in both units can attack the model just because "there's noone behind him" ? They're not in base contact, and you can't actually 'move him back to fill the void' without him not being in b2b with the other unit... Regarding the bell, just imagine a situation where it gets attacked in both the flank and rear. Would you still allow units on the flank to attack the bell even though you suddently have intervening troops moving back to fill the void? Mutate : Stupid typo |
![]() |
|
| CapAmr05 | 14th January 2011 - 09:45 PM Post #4 |
![]() ![]()
|
This is a tough one, but here goes; I don't think you'd be able to swing at the bell, the fronts and flanks are dictated by the entire unit combined (the troops being the outer flanks). I understand the gap-migration mentality, but in those cases it's the flanked troops moving across the gap in order to strike at the flanking enemy, not the other way around (i.e. flanking enemies don't move into the gaps); the bell itself can't move so feasibly no one should be crossing the gap. I don't really think it's fair, but you know if it were a furnace most enemies would opt to go the no strike route, because in order to be considered as swinging at the isolated furnace, they'd have to be considered touching it, meaning they would have to endure crew and gas attacks. Maybe there's some middle ground that could be arranged to allow any 'stranded' enemy flankers (guys as wide as the bell, but not touching clanrats) the courtesy of attacking the 'flank', meaning the clanrats since the bell is "unreachable" There are ways to have this happen on a smaller scale with say a depleted unit that only has the front rank and a mounted hero in the middle of the unit. ^^^^^^ TTTHTTT .....e...... .....r...... .....o..... Were the unit charged in the right or left flank, and the hero elected not to make way, that wouldn't create a situation for his back end to be swung at just because it stuck out further and he was 3 troops away from close combat. You'd make the flanking force attack the troopers. Like models in the front you can only attack the 'outer edges' of the units and anything that cannot or chooses (in the chase of heros) not to make the gap movement should not be fair game for striking. --Cap |
|
Lonewolf Grand Tournament April 28-30 The Beer Phase Podcast Clan Skrittar | |
![]() |
|
| Rakashani | 14th January 2011 - 10:33 PM Post #5 |
|
Warlord
|
Interesting argument, Cap. It's certainly better than anything I had come up with so far. (Like ratboy1018 I've just let them swing away...) In a general sense I agree with you but I can't think of any rules that support the interpretation. Certainly something to suggest for the FAQ collectors though. |
![]() |
|
| CapAmr05 | 14th January 2011 - 11:36 PM Post #6 |
![]() ![]()
|
There aren't any rules to support or deny it (other than the generic flanking rules and who strikes who in combat rules). But those are based on the rectangle and box formations we typically see units in, they never really tell us how to treat a unit with an odd shaped protrusion. And from what I remember they never really formally define flanks such as; you could denfine it as the left and right outermost columns (which would exclude the bell), you could define it as the left-ern-most or right-ern-most models per rank, inwhich case would include the bell (or any other protruding centrally placed model) you could define it as not the front and not the rear (the two places we know you can always[front] and can usually [rear] strike at the bell) The problem with the situation is if they're swiging on your bell, your rat ogre should be swinging back at them, (although arguably they may be able to swing at the seer too?). I'm not sure my interpreation above is right; but I can't find anything other than the generic combat and flank rules that should steer me away from the scenario I've laid out (I've actually seen it happen on the playing table once with my monk/furnace; my opponent and I studied the BRB thoroughly and couldn't come to a conclusion). But what's posted above is the closest I can come to reasoning it out within the confines of the rules we have. My main problem(s) with the enemy walking across the gap to get to the bell is 1) they'd be breaking from their own unit/ formation to do so [something we don't see form typical r-n-f], 2) while doing so the 2 or 3 files of clanrats along the way would be swinging at them, 3) it brings in a dynamic never touched on by current rules (other than moving for challenges, but then, that's only for models actually touching base to base combat to begin with). We used to have lapping rules in 5th edition, which is the closest game dynamic in warhammer that I've seen to this scenario (basically a few models form the winning side break from formation and begin to envelope the losing enemy unit, working their way around the flank and even rear if it lasted long enough); lapping would have allowed this 'crossing the gap', the problem with lapping though was it got super messy super fast, and if anyone else joined the combat the 'lappers' had to scurry back into their formation and start all over; which is probably why GW did away with it. --Cap |
|
Lonewolf Grand Tournament April 28-30 The Beer Phase Podcast Clan Skrittar | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Fantasy Battles Rules Discussion · Next Topic » |








