|
Post by Devil's Advocate on Oct 18, 2007 19:14:05 GMT
First issue is the pile-in rule itself. There is some contention as to which models pile-in. The write-up states 'locked, but not engaged'. But the summary, and the picture, have locked and engaged, (but not BtB) get to pile in. Further, either in the 4th Ed 'trial rules' or in 3rd ed (I forget which) the definition of locked and engaged were different. So it appears that the written instruction for who gets to pile in is a cut n paste error. I think you're right that the pic and summary are from the "trial assault rules" that they tried a while ago, and I also believe they introduced a distinct definition for Locked and Engaged in the trial rules, and then redefined them for 4th ed to make it more clear. I agree, those examples are a cut and paste error. (I would have to review them to be sure, but I'm back at work and no book handy) We all know that the "official proscribed way" changes a little once you reach the table. How many times have you seen someone roll 2 dice for their twin linked lascannon? or pile several different colored or sized dice for mixed shooting? or count in 3 broods of genestealer attacks on a single unit and just roll it all at the same time? It saves time, reduces confusion. Similarly, you can choose to handle consolidate and pile ins at the end of each combat, and for most instances it's ok, because when each of those individual combats are finished, they are DONE FOR THE PHASE. However, when when you have tight quarters, multiple separate assaults going on and there is a (good) chance that one unit might succeed and pile into a different assault, it's better to handle the consolidate/pile in of all units all at once at the end of the phase. BOTH ways are correct, and the rules are written both ways. page number? this sounds wrong to me. when your Hgaunts consolidate from a previous combat, that previous combat is over. if you consolidate into a new unit, the new combat begins immediately models in base contact are immediately engaged and the units are now locked. however, since you can't have the unit initiate more than one assault in a round, their assault is over for the round and for them, the PHASE ends. Pile in immediately to the unit they (were)are locked with. I disagree. you're not looking at them as isolated events and breaking it all down properly. you're depending too much on the language and not what is actually happening on the table. Where are the round breaks? you haven't given enough info. Soooo... I'll start assuming/lecturing. Stealer 1 and Hgaunt 1 assault Marine 1 and 2, respectively. Stealer 1 stalls and doesn't defeat the marines, while Hgaunt 1 defeats marine 2 handily, and may consolidate. Stealer 1 piles into the Marine 1, then Hgaunt 1 consolidates 6" into Marine 1 and then must pile in. this is the end of the assault phase for both units. on their NEXT assault phase, no unit is counted as charging (even though Hgaunt 1 contacted a new opposing unit) and the fight continues as normal. assuming that Marine 1 loses, then BOTH the Stealer 1 AND Hgaunt 1 may consolidate, contact and pile into new enemy units, and again, that is the end of the assault phase. what would not be correct: Stealer 1 and Hgaunt 1 assault Marine 1 and 2, respectively. Tyranid player rolls Hgaunt 1 assault and crushes Marine 2. He then consolidates and piles into Marine 1, and then proceeds to contribute Hgaunt attacks to that assault. If Hgaunt 1 does NOT contribute attacks, but Stealer 1 STILL defeats Marine 1, the Hgaunts may NOT additionally consolidate and pile in from that combat. it was actually over before they got there, and the Hgaunt's assault phase was over as soon as they piled in. more clear now? Engaged models are those in BtB contact and 2" away from the model in BtB. The whole unit is then considered Locked. Pile in happens to models in the unit that is Locked but not Engaged. Consolidation states that it may be used to lock enemy units in combat. So after Consolidation you have Locked your unit in combat, and if you have any models still not Engaged after Consolidation, those models would have to Pile in. that's exactly where I'm coming from. Totally with ya... the smaller unit would see the charging horde and be intimidated. What?? Sweeping advance is a check to see if you catch a unit and wipe it out after the losing side (in an assault) checks morale. Since the requirements to perform a sweeping advance are so specific, I can't see how you can pull off 2 from a single unit in a single assault phase. please elaborate. begs the argument why can't I always choose to run my guys an extra 12" in open terrain away from the enemy, if they CAN run up to an extra 12"right after and while running into a CC combat? I see where you're coming from, but here (I think) is the piece you are missing: Consolidate isn't really "extra movement". It's there to represent the distance that the overall assault traveled as well as the distance that is eaten up while a unit commander re-organizes his troops after the assault is finished. If, in the course of the consolidation, you engage another unit in combat, it's easy to assume that the "Swirling Melee" rolled over another unit as the first assault came to an end. the attackers didn't have time to reload their weapons, throw a couple grenades, etc, and the unit that was swept up in the fighting didn't have a chance to set for charge, unload their guns at the charging unit, etc. (which is why initiative isn't modified by cover, either)
|
|
|
Post by arcticsnake on Oct 18, 2007 22:03:05 GMT
Let's say GS brood A is in combat with SM squad A, and HG brood B is in combat with SM squad B. GS wins combat and consolidates into SM squad B. HG brood wins combat, and SM squad B loses morale and falls back (HG and GS were both counted for outnumbering at this point). HG brood gets to Sweeping Advance (provided they still have models in BTB contact with the SM squad). The GS brood should also be able to try to Sweeping Advance the SMs, since they would have models in BTB contact after consolidation. Like, the SMs saw the GS brood charging, get's scared and runs away, GS saw the SMs running away and does not stop to pause and tries to cut the SMs down as the SMs fall back.
|
|
|
Post by Devil's Advocate on Oct 18, 2007 22:26:10 GMT
Let's say GS brood A is in combat with SM squad A, and HG brood B is in combat with SM squad B. GS wins combat and consolidates into SM squad B. HG brood wins combat, and SM squad B loses morale and falls back (HG and GS were both counted for outnumbering at this point). HG brood gets to Sweeping Advance (provided they still have models in BTB contact with the SM squad). The GS brood should also be able to try to Sweeping Advance the SMs, since they would have models in BTB contact after consolidation. Like, the SMs saw the GS brood charging, get's scared and runs away, GS saw the SMs running away and does not stop to pause and tries to cut the SMs down as the SMs fall back. Assuming that you're saying that all this happens on the same combat phase, you're suggesting a cheat. the Genestealers that swept and consolidated into the the 2nd marine squad cannot contribute to the fight between the Hgaunts and marines, since they technically happen all at the same time. in cases like this, it's important to leave the consolidate and pile ins of ALL assaults until the end of the assault phase and then do them all at once.
|
|
|
Post by arcticsnake on Oct 18, 2007 23:39:03 GMT
Gotcha.
I think I see where I got this wrong, once in the Pile In stage, since the Stealers are done with their Sweeping Advance and Consolidation stage, no more Sweeps or Consolidates for them.
|
|
|
Post by lowlygaunt on Oct 19, 2007 16:47:29 GMT
Good explanation on the"extra" movement Striogi, that makes some sense, but I still have the argument, that, in a turn in which a unit charges, fights, and wins a CC they can move 24", why can another unit running along a backroad to flank the enemy not also move 24"? I understand it is really a set of rules to handle situations, and I am just arguing the logical side of it. Not arguing the rules interpretation at all, it just boggles my mind that assaulting troops can move up to four times the distance non-assaulting troops can in a turn of 40k. It certainly doesn't fit any of the historical record of military battles, where in fact, troops in an assault move far slower than troops outside an assault. (fantasy handles this well with the march move) Which is why outflanking the enemy has ALWAYS been plan number one in every tactical textbook in the world, because engaged troops move slower than un-engaged. Engage the enemy main body, then move around them while they are bogged down. In 40k, the opposite is in fact what happens, your flanking troops move at only 1/4 the possible movement rate of your assaulting troops.
Ok so in reality in the age of assault rifles true "hand to hand" combat is almost non-existant (yes it does exist and you can find examples in WWI WWII of it, but it is less than 1/10,000 of the combats involved, in fact, most fights from that era described by the combatants as hand to hand, when described in detail expose the concept that the hand to hand consisted of firing pistols and rifles at point blank, and throwing grenades, and knives, bayonets and such were replaced as weapons by hand grenades and pistols, less than 1 in 500,000 veterans from WWII on all sides in a study from 1964 done to determine the proper equipment for vietnam, stated that they had ever used their bayonet, knife or had physical contact with an enemy, band of Brothers shows this concept best) since it really becomes a firefight at less than 10-20 yards (the typical exchange rate of fire for Vietnam era conflict). So my "logic" may be moot in a future where troops guns are often less effective than their fists, bayonets, etc. ( In reality this exchange of point blank fire is what 40k is trying to portray as a CC in my opinion) Bleh, I know, it is just game rules, and I am a military historian so its my little pet peeve lol. This type of discussion is what my job consists of about 20% of the time. I am done! In any case I still appreciate those who have clarified the rules here for me!
|
|
|
Post by thepuritan on Oct 19, 2007 17:17:38 GMT
your flanking troops move at only 1/4 the possible movement rate of your assaulting troops. honestly, i think that 24" move will be an extreme rarity... your opponent's squad has to be exactly 12" away you have to kill every model THAT ROUND you have to roll a 6 on your massacre roll AND there has to be a squad exactly 6" away really, though, assaultING troops move fast in 40K... assaultED troops don't move at all. ...so, you can perform your flanking manuver. how many times have you used Hormagaunts to charge in a turn early before siccing your Genestealers on your opponent? ...or sending Flying/Leaping Rippers in before your lumbering CC Fex can waddle his big-self in? your opponent is stuck, unable to move away, until you can bring the rest of your force to bear.
|
|
|
Post by lowlygaunt on Oct 22, 2007 18:36:47 GMT
Ah, my counter Puritan is that assaulted tropps can get an extra move, if they win the combat. So once again, even troops who have been assaulted get more movement then troops running across the battlefield. Sure not all the time, even maybe rarely, but they still do. The slowest troops in 40k are the ones not engaged in combat, I agree, they do not get the extra movement all the time, but they at least get it, troops out of CC NEVER EVER EVER get any extra movement (beyond fleet etc of course) it is silly. Also the comment that rarely will they get 24" is certainly true, but even on an average move/charge, consolidate they get to move somewhere between 10-15 inches, which again is more than double my guys sprinting around the flank. Good point on the last section about holding the enemy up for slower guys. that is typically a viable option. but a smart enemy can often turn the tables, rushing troops in to wipe out your assaulters while they are locked, and then using their extra movement to excape your slow guys, since troops in CC can get extra movement and your Fex can't. (This as a note is exactly how I use my counterattacking units to protect my shooting units, I let my less expensive shooting units take the charge (mostly those with short ranged weapons), and hope they survive (this generaly allows me a point blank shooting phase for rapid fire, etc), keeping a powerfull counterattack 7-10" at an angle behind them (all viable in my deployment zone), when the charge locks into melee, I counter attack, wipe out the original chargers, then use my gained movement to back up, this gives me movement away from enemies, sometimes I just get wiped out of course, and then I cry. . . )
|
|
|
Post by yoritomo on Oct 22, 2007 18:46:45 GMT
Ok so in reality in the age of assault rifles true "hand to hand" combat is almost non-existant (yes it does exist and you can find examples in WWI WWII of it, but it is less than 1/10,000 of the combats involved, in fact, most fights from that era described by the combatants as hand to hand, when described in detail expose the concept that the hand to hand consisted of firing pistols and rifles at point blank, and throwing grenades, and knives, bayonets and such were replaced as weapons by hand grenades and pistols, less than 1 in 500,000 veterans from WWII on all sides in a study from 1964 done to determine the proper equipment for vietnam, stated that they had ever used their bayonet, knife or had physical contact with an enemy, band of Brothers shows this concept best) since it really becomes a firefight at less than 10-20 yards (the typical exchange rate of fire for Vietnam era conflict). So my "logic" may be moot in a future where troops guns are often less effective than their fists, bayonets, etc. ( In reality this exchange of point blank fire is what 40k is trying to portray as a CC in my opinion) Bleh, I know, it is just game rules, and I am a military historian so its my little pet peeve lol. This type of discussion is what my job consists of about 20% of the time. I am done! This is one of my pet peeves, some bean counter telling me, the guy on the ground, how life really is. I could fight anyone on the planet in hand to hand combat, and I'd win 90% of the time too. But if I had to fight somebody I wouldn't use hand to hand combat if I could help it. Why? Because if I'm going to fight somebody I'm going to look for an edge. Why would I take the chance of losing in hand to hand combat when I can use a pistol or grenade in close combat? Look at your facts again. There was a tremendous amount of close combat in the past 100 years. Why was there so little hand to hand combat then? Because the only people who would choose to fight in hand to hand combat are the ones who are unbeatable or have not other option. There could have been a ton of hand to hand combat in the past 100 years if someone just decided to throw a punch instead of squeeze a trigger. There will always be close combat, no matter how advanced technology gets. It doesn't matter what weapon you use; if you want to enter a 4x6 room you will have to get close to the enemy. Then you just have to decide if you want to shoot him in close combat or wrestle with him in hand to hand combat.
|
|
|
Post by thepuritan on Oct 22, 2007 19:16:21 GMT
Ah, my counter Puritan is that assaulted troops can get an extra move, if they win the combat. oops! yeah, you're right about that... i think that any 40K rule (or situation) could be described in fluff terms as both perfectly acceptable AND wildly ludicrus... given the description. i agree with you that there could be a rule representing a situation where a squad would/should get an extra move. bottom line: it probably isn't there strictly for balance purposes. as a 'Nids player, i sure wish my unengauged models could have some extra movement... especially when, in fluff terms, thier survival instincts have been wholly overridden by the Hive Mind (IE: me) so they shouldn't be "moving slowly to avoid getting shot" like it's explained in the rules. when i first started playing Games Workshop games,* you used to be able to have a squad "run"... you'd double the movement for the squad for that turn. ...those were the days... well, those were the days when games lasted a week. :-( * - this should be read in the tone that someone might say "when I was your age..."
|
|
|
Post by lowlygaunt on Oct 24, 2007 18:18:54 GMT
Yori, I was not arguing that CC is a forgotten or unused art etc, I was arguing that in fact, the majority of the wars of the 20th century saw very little pure hand to hand combat because everyone did have a gun and grenades etc. And I finished my comment by stating that I understood that the concept of close combat included point blank shooting. I am not sure what point you were trying to make? you both say in your post you think my facts are wrong, and then use my exact argument to say why there wasn't much true fist to fist etc. I found your post somewhat confusing as you at one point state you believe my fact are incorrect, and in the previous paragraph explain why true hand to hand did not take place, which was the point of my facts. Perhaps you were simply pointing out that CC takes place, but not true HTH? Look at your facts again. There was a tremendous amount of close combat in the past 100 years. Why was there so little hand to hand combat then? Because the only people who would choose to fight in hand to hand combat are the ones who are unbeatable or have not other option. There could have been a ton of hand to hand combat in the past 100 years if someone just decided to throw a punch instead of squeeze a trigger. This in fact, was my exact point. Soldiers did not drop their guns to fight in CC. Go read Forgotten Soldier, Roll me Over, Semper Fi, mac, Guns Up, Russia's heroes, Beever's Stalingrad, Guadalcanal diary, Frank's Guadalcanal, the Thin Red line, Tarawa, the list could go on. These are all first hand eyewitness accounts from the "man on the ground" who fought those wars. They themselves talk about the reality of Close Combat, how rare it really was, and that in fact the killing power of modern rifles, sub-machine guns, and pistols meant you rarely got within 30 yards of the enemy. The standard tactic in Stalingrad, the ultimate city fight in history, as explained in numerous orders, guides, training books produced by all three (yes there were three armies in Stalingrad, 2 axid, and the Russians) armies fighting there at the time (many of which I have personaly read myself) state this as the method for house to house fighting: toss in grenades, as they go off follow with an assault squad, 4 men with sub-machine guns first who rapid fire at all furniture, they are followed by 4-10 men whose job is to shoot any visible bodies, the assault squad does NOT stop moving, they continue thru the room to exit firing at all times. the last men out are to leave grenades behind. This is construed as close combat, but involves no HTH for the exact reasons you stated. Why throw away their advantage? My "facts" are based on 20 years of study, including my graduate and doctoral thesis on World War I. Do you have a library of 100+ personal accounts, biographies, and interviews with veterans from the wars of the 20th century? I do. This has been a part of my life and doctoral thesis for 15 years. So, I have "checked" my facts. Perhaps your statement was only meant to say there has been CC? A point I was not arguing. This is one of my pet peeves, some bean counter telling me, the guy on the ground, how life really is. Also, careful, I am not a bean counter as you say, I am a veteran of the USMC, and a third generation marine, and played college and semi-pro level hockey for 14 years. Alas, I have been in plenty of "combat", and although I am not at your skill level where I can beat 90% of the world (I have been taught, but am no Uber fighter), both in training and on the ice I have won and lost more than a few brawls. I am not sure what you really meant by this statement, it can easily be construed as an insult, or at least an attack on my credentials. I do not know anything about you Yoritomo, except the little bit from posts on this board, and you do not know anything about me either, in the future do not assume you know where I am coming from, my background, skills, and life experiences. I suspect by your statement you might be an MMA fan/participant, as I myself am (although by your statement I am betting it may be a more involved hobby for you). If your statement was not meant as an attack, next time maybe choose your words more carefully, having a different opinion then someone else on a subject is the way life is and what makes the world work, discounting another's opinion because of the "percieved" background of that person is not the way to express it. I understand you and I are different people, and probably from different generations, I have many times stated what I do, I am a military historian who teaches, researches and studies the conflicts of this world, that does not make me "right', it just means it is a subject I have spent my life studying, and that when I talk about that subject I am not talking off the top of my head because I "think" this happened, it is because I have studied, talked to, read the accounts of, hundreds of people who participated. That is what historians do. I of course, still stand by this statement, until I read enough first hand accounts to refute the hundreds I have already studied. Oct 19, 2007, 8:47am, lowlygaunt wrote:Ok so in reality in the age of assault rifles true "hand to hand" combat is almost non-existant (yes it does exist and you can find examples in WWI WWII of it, but it is less than 1/10,000 of the combats involved, in fact, most fights from that era described by the combatants as hand to hand, when described in detail expose the concept that the hand to hand consisted of firing pistols and rifles at point blank, and throwing grenades, and knives, bayonets and such were replaced as weapons by hand grenades and pistols, less than 1 in 500,000 veterans from WWII on all sides in a study from 1964 done to determine the proper equipment for vietnam, stated that they had ever used their bayonet, knife or had physical contact with an enemy, band of Brothers shows this concept best) since it really becomes a firefight at less than 10-20 yards (the typical exchange rate of fire for Vietnam era conflict). I am only human, and like all humans I can have my temper ruffled. I have tried to write this in a calm and non-attacking manner, if I failed in that understand it was not my intention.
|
|