[TOW] CD vs WE - part the two 🪓

It’s partly my fault for painting you in this sort of light. Written words are mighty fickle without sufficient context :see_no_evil: I apologize for that.

Yeah, qua the look out, sir! rule, the waystalker sniper list is not looking to be able to do the job it was intended to. Unfortunate, but hey - whittle down the enemy’s bunker to less than 5 rank and file and you’re good to go - maybe those 5 minimum tax glade guard will save the day :grin:

In any case, we have a good TO to settle disputes if any. We should, however clarify at least the ruling for LOS beforehand. As long as everyone is on the same page, the games ought to proceed smoothly enough, as long as we keep the ever elusive “spirit of the game”, and avoid gotcha moments.

3 Likes

The wood elf forum all agrees that look out sir against sniping in a unit is a thing now, and it’s pretty clear from the rules too. It used to only apply to templates, that’s why I didn’t realize soo er. Ah well.

That applies to your curse of hashut spell as well, I would say? Although it’s pretty hilarious that the character will take the toughness but his comrades somehow take the hits.

The waystalker, and the curse of hashut, can still target lone characters that are hiding behind friendly units. So i am hoping the waystalker will force the mages into units, and hopefully I can catch them with my combat units that way.

Waywatchers, wardancers and Treemen are my favorite WE units and the list has them all if you count waystalker as a super waywatcher. It’s not a bad list either, just less cheesy :cheese:

Let’s see what happens on Sunday at the tournament. May the best elf win. I mean dwarf. Of the chaos persuasion, of course.

3 Likes

I still think it’s BS both for the Waystalker as well as Curse of Hashut. I fully expect this will be in an upcoming Errata. If the wording of the rules as they are supports it, I guess the errata will change the wording rather than it being in the FAQ. Would be a shame, because that would mean it could be fixed by changing the wording of the waystalker rule and let the curse of Hashut stay as it is, because of the whole no-updates-for-legacy-factions. Ah well, let’s see what comes up.

3 Likes

Walking through this it sounds like this was the scenario:

  • The orcs were slightly behind the dwarfs
  • The elves were in a straight line such that a charge straight forward would have brought them into contact with the dwarfs
  • The elves wheeled on the charge in order to catch a corner of the orcs and avoid the dwarfs
  • The orcs closed the door so the elves didn’t contact the dwarfs

If so this is the exact scenario where you would use Multiple Charge Targets, especially since the wheel allowed during a charge is for the express purpose of maximizing the models in combat. To say otherwise is just a blatant disregard for RAI. Why else would it exist if you could just force the opponent to come to you every time? What’s more the The Charge Move itself contains closing the door right it it’s definition meaning that it applies RAW as well.

As for Look Out Sir for those abilities it pretty clearly applies as it is for all shooting attacks now. For Curse Of Hashut you’d make the look out check prior to resolving the hits too. These abilities just allow for targeting. I don’t think any faq is needed.

3 Likes

You know, I’ll go ahead and pose the question to our impartial TO. He’s usually on point with these decisions. Although the more I look at it, the less argument for doing it the way we did I’m able to see…

As for the look out, sir! thing… Well actually… If a soldier sees the arrow a flying, and has the inclination and foresight (why isn’t it initiative dependant, actually…? :thinking:) to intervene, I suppose it makes sense. Why wouldn’t it count if there is only 5 guys, then? A sorcerer raising a menacing finger in the gesture of a curse, sure, jump in front, but the same thing still applies. Why are soldiers less inclined to jump “in front of a bullet” if there are fewer of them? Or for the more malicious characters, they may shove an underling in harm’s way to save themselves :thinking: In any case, I honestly see the RAI for these sorts of things is to circumvent look out, sir!

2 Likes

Update: yeah, friendly local TO agrees it’d have to be a multi charge. Case closed.

3 Likes

Maybe we can use Fig 130.2 from the rulebook for this.

Unit C is the Infernal Guard, unit B are the Black Orcs. Is the relative positioning roughly similar? Were they parallel or angled?

If they were a little bit more parallel, unit A couldn’t charge unit B in “as straight a line as possible” as per p126 but would have to wheel slightly towards unit C and move forward to clip unit B before making contact with unit C, right? Is this a suitable stand-in for what happened? Because that would have the same result: Unit A cannot complete the alignment to unit B without making contact with unit C.

I always viewed this for fluff reasons: There needs to be a certain amount of models so that one of them actually spots the arrow. If one additional model would be enough to spot the model and push the character out of harms way, why can’t the character not just spot the arrow himself and just move 50cm to the side?

My opinion on this remains that the wording “a model with this special rule can target a specific model within its target unit, such as a champion or a character” (that’s from the Waystalker) supersedes Look out Sir, just because if it wouldn’t, the whole thing would be completely pointless. I mean I’d assume that everybody is able to see the character in the unit and would try to hit him, but just lacks the skill. The inability to hit a character is therefore an expression of this in the rules, where all shots either miss on their own or the other models protect the character. Because idk, say 100 arrows hit a unit of 6 with a character. As per the rules, not a single arrow can hit the character, while just based on pure chance, some should. Only the rarest of marksmen, like the Waystalker, can pull off a shot which finds the gap.
As for why Curse of Hashut can do it: Magic.

For me, Look out Sir is only for templates.

2 Likes

Yeah, the sniper still has a ⅙ chance of hitting the guy, but he’s not much of a marksman, that being the case :laughing:

Oh and to answer you other point, here’s how the units were positioned:

I’m starting to doubt the conclusiveness of a required multi charge, however…

If looking at the requirements for a charge:
Messenger_creation_103fba24-0688-4f2a-8319-7dc0e7298270
1 - endeavor to
2 - as possible
3 - as possible

These definitions make the charge process less rigid in this case.

Then:
Screenshot_20240404-132549
He did indeed manage to make contact, via the shortest route possible, in the straightest line possible (avoiding to touch anything but the charge target), he was then unable to align properly because my IG were in the way. This scenario does indeed open it up to two interpretations: either we go by p. 128 unable to align, and do as we did, letting the orcs align, or we go by p. 130 and say the elves couldn’t complete their charge move without making contact with the IG.

The argument for using the rule on p. 128 is that it says the charger is able to make contact, but not align cause of outside interference :person_shrugging: The argument for p. 130 is that the outside interference was an enemy unit. I just don’t know anymore :flushed: To me it looks like a toss up at this point.

1 Like

Oh there’s a picture, good! Need a little help identifying some units though :sweat_smile: Who is who and how did the Wildwood Rangers wheel?

The thing about p128 is that shown in the figure is some impassible terrain. The unit literally cannot move as far as it needs to for alignment. If it’s an enemy unit, that situation changes. If the unit moves as far as it can, it gets into contact with the second enemy unit.

Yes, I am with you if it is to complete the charge. But don’t forget

4 - must ensure

Alignment is part of completing the charge, you posted that snippet of the rules yourself.

3 Likes

Red and green, IG and blorcs, blue: rangers.

They wheeled from their left corner specifically to avoid the IG for as long as possible.

1 Like

Their left corner? Like this?

I guess you meant right corner, yes?

Anyway, if they indeed wheeled from their left corner (the one where the arrow starts) and made contact with the Black Orcs, then I’d say all was good. It wasn’t the shortest route overall, but it was the shortest route to make legal contact with the Black Orcs, and charging only one unit is the default, charging multiple units at once can only be done if it’s impossible to avoid (at least that’s how I understand the rules)

If they wheeled from the right corner, we’re back at square one. And so far I have not read anything which would dissuade me from believing it should have been a multi-charge.

2 Likes

Uh, let me get this right. They pivoted around a static point on their left corner :woozy_face: So the right corner was the one to move.

2 Likes

Haha, yeah I thought as much :wink: Semantics.

1 Like

Hello guys,

@flagellant04 , lets try to keep this constructive and civilized. Please refer to the rulebook when making claims about how rules should work, it makes it easier to discuss based on facts instead of feelings and guesses.

The picture from vacationist perfectly shows the setup, a line of ranger charging into a line of black orcs and avoiding a line of infernal guard :slight_smile:

I have tried to make a flow sheet to show you my reasoning for why I think the move we did was correct. This is not about winning or losing, but about playing it correctly in the future. I am already signed up for two upcoming tournaments, and want to play this correctly. See flow sheet below:

The “Unable to align” rule explicitly states that a charge can be completed despite the charger not being able to align. This does not come for free though, it makes the charge disordered which we forgot but luckily did not have any impact. Be aware that despite the figure showing terrain blocking the aligning as an example, the rule refers to “something” which could be anything blocking movement including obstacles, friendly units and enemy units.

The “multiple charge targets” explicitly states that it should only be used if the charging unit cannot complete a charge without coming into contact with other enemy units. This is why three units are shown in the figure, it is a very rare scenario.

Thus the rangers should not charge multiple units, as the charge could be completed against the target using the “unable to align” rule without getting into contact with other enemy units. The cost being that it counted as a disordered charge of course.

I think the reason why charging multiple targets have historically always been the last choice, is to avoid death stars from charging multiple units each turn and trample through the opponents army in no time.

I have played warhammer since 6th edition and joined countless tournaments in multiple countries. Despite being new to ToW, I am not new the franchise. Many rules in ToW are unclear and/or undefined, but I actually think everything is defined about this charge move although not very intuitive to read.

Although I tried out linehammer in this game to give it a chance, I am actually a big opponent of it. I hope it will be FAQ’ed or that comp systems will be in place soon to restrict it.

Please let me know if I have missed something. However, I will no longer reply to non-constructive arguments not based on the rulebook or the FAQ.

Cheers, and thank you for the discussion!

1 Like

Yes, but you’re conveniently glossing over the fact that aligning with the enemy is part of the charge move. It’s even in the snippet your brother posted. And the TO friend of his confirmed it. The Rangers couldn’t complete the charge move without getting into contact with another enemy unit as per p130. Their move was not stopped by “something” as per p128, where the unit cannot physically complete the move.

It does not say on p130 that a unit only has to make contact with its charge target. The word contact is only used for the other enemy unit.

2 Likes

You agreed! :sweat_smile: I think the takeaway is that the situation can be ruled in two different ways. “Something” could indeed be ruled to include enemy units, and coming into contact with another enemy unit while aligning could be ruled to necessitate a multi charge.

I’m on the fence about this one, I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings :laughing: I’ll hold that it is arguable (well, obviously!), and that a TO will have to make a decision until it can be faq’ed. Furthermore, should the scenario come to pass in a situation where there is no TO, the players are expected to:
IMG-20240404-WA0004

The gentlemanly thing is to give the opponent the benefit of the doubt, and if both kerfuffle to let the other player be right - roll a 4+ to decide before committing to the charge.

2 Likes

I long since deleted that post because I wasn’t proud of it, but if you want to read edit history that’s on you.

I won’t deny that when I see a self-described pushover clearly frustrated by his learning games with an opponent who appears to have been more concerned with finding self-serving loopholes than learning the game it definitely upsets me. I hope you can see my defense of your brother in that light at least.

More generous interpretations from you in the past two games would have resulted in correct rulings 2/3 times at least, and 3/3 per the TO. My play group would rather take a loss than a win embittered by bad calls, and that’s the spirit of WHFB.

3 Likes

@jasko, thank you for the input. I know aligning is part of the normal charge, but unable to align is exactly and exception to this as I read it. I also know page 130 mentions completing the charge, but the charge was completed using unable to align. Still don’t see which rule I break, but I could be wrong ofc

@flagellant04, thank you for your input as well. You might consider him a self described push over, that was true in our past maybe, but he won our latest 8th tournament far ahead of the opposition using Skaven. I think you misunderstand that I am trying to win by using loopholes, we are actually trying to figure out the rules. It was a shame we did not refer to the FAQ in the first game, but the fact that it was described in the FAQ means that I am not the only one who misunderstood this wording. Seems we can’t agree on the charge, and I am not sure what the third issue is. In the first game we disregarded several dice rolls to ensure a more even game, so I still think you got the wrong idea about me wanting to win at all cost. But you are of course free to decide by yourself.

Vacationist, I agree that overly long debates should be avoided during the game, and we exactly decided together how to play it out to keep the game flowing. I offered not to do the charge if you felt it didn’t follow the rules, and I feel everything went according to the spirit of the game. Silver lining is that I think the experience will help you in the upcoming tournament, to improve unit placement and ensuring the dwarves be used as anvil and the orcs as hammer.

It is a shame that we could not reach an agreement about how the charge rules should work. Let’s hope it will be clarified in erreta/faq. In the meantime, let’s leave it up to TO and the spirit of the game outside tournaments. Thank you all for the debate, I think we should call it case closed for now.

:v:

4 Likes

I think we’re at a point again where the arguments have been made. Let’s see if it gets addressed in a future FAQ.

3 Likes

Sorry, I know I said case closed. But try to watch this video by D6 wounds, a supposed rule expert, he agrees with me at 1min25sec.

Gotta go prepare for tomorrows tournament, let’s see if vacationist and I will face each other there. Might be that third time’s a charm for vacationist :muscle:

1 Like