How to tell someone they are cheap w/o whining?

[Master of arneim]

Sorry but you're wrong. There is really no other way to say you are wrong, than that. (I don't care that you're from Italy or wherever either).

Nice...

I didn't say that I'm from Italy to state that I know the rules and you don't. I have already saw this move many and many times.

Under wheeling it doesn't state anything about models moving more than their move distance.

Is a wheeling a movement? Yes. What is said about movements? That no models can move more than their move rate.

It simply states "all models in the unit count as moving as far as the outside model". The outside model is the front one as shown in the diagram 13.1. In fact if you start to move even a regular sized, but more rectangularly shaped unit in a wheel you will see that some of the back models indeed move farther than allotted. There is no mention of rectangularly shaped units under wheeling.

There is no word either that you've to measure from the first rank. If you look at the diagrams as like the written rules, then it would mean that those rules could be applied only to orcs and empire armies. Diagrams do not show all and leave more doubts than the ones they solve.

Moreover, for example, models in units that reform may move up to twice their movement rate.

And this is clearly stated by the rulebook, so no problems of any kind arise here.

What I have mentioned is a problem with movement in warhammer that has been around for a very long time and is known to many older gamers. Most people control the urge to pull off such unrealistic maneuvers simply to protect the game from silliness. Indeed a VC army could be rediculously annoying if people made long congo lines out of their units.

You are absolutely right. But what has to be told is that many and many and many and many times we see behaviours and (in the practice) actions that leaves some doubts only because we do not read properly the rulebook. I'm not saying that if there is nothing written we have to look at the "way the game is designed for" or counting on the "fair and correct playing" or so on.

I could give you another example: extending the frontage. Happened in the Uk Heat (the first) that someone thought to extend the frontage only on one side, then reducing it with the purpose to gain a lateral movement longer than what he could get with the "turn, move, turn" . In the 7th edition there is no more the rule that you've to keep your centre blocked or you've to bring to the left as many models as to the right. Here's a little scheme:

xxxxx
xxxxx

xxxxxxxxxx

------xxxxx
------xxxxx

Nobody said nothing (excluding the poor opponent :-)) because the referee considered (after a while) this a legal move. What was wrong was that the models could not do this movement because they bypassed their move rate, being even the extension of the frontage subject to the rules about moving. The limit is the same as for your manouver.

[Langmann]

If you look at the diagrams as like the written rules, then it would mean that those rules could be applied only to orcs and empire armies. Diagrams do not show all and leave more doubts than the ones they solve.

That has to be the worst response I have heard to anything. Don't be silly.

As to your example of frontage, which is known as changing formation as written in the rulebook, if they had looked at the diagram they would not have allowed this maneuver as it clearly shows models being appropriated to both sides of the unit or removed from both sides. Use the diagrams, they are part of the rules.

Games like Flames of War have produced excellent diagrams that detail the written meaning of the rules.

You are absolutely right. But what has to be told is that many and many and many and many times we see behaviours and (in the practice) actions that leaves some doubts only because we do not read properly the rulebook. I'm not saying that if there is nothing written we have to look at the "way the game is designed for" or counting on the "fair and correct playing" or so on.

No the problem is that the rulebooks are generally poorly written in Warhammer. I'm sorry but your interpretation of the rules is still wrong based on both how movement is commonly measured in this game, the description of wheeling and its attached diagram showing where to measure from. I like how you're trying to rule's lawyer your way out of it, but by doing so you make maneuvering regularly sized rectangularly shaped units very complicated and add a whole new argument to the game.

The only way around it when something is poorly written is to conform to what makes sense instead of being a jerk to the opponent and for GW to produce frequent FAQs.

Anyway I think we're done here.

[Sharkbelly]

Or, it might be the problem that there are always people who have no common sense when it comes to game mechanics.

"Sure, my nights can move 20" in one turn. All you have to do is form this conga line..."

Not something I'd let fly in a game.

[Calisson]

In the 7th edition there is no more the rule that you've to keep your centre blocked or you've to bring to the left as many models as to the right. Here's a little scheme:

Before move:
abCDe
nopqr

First step:
abCDenopqr

Second step:
------noCDr
------abpqe

the referee considered this a legal move. What was wrong was that the models could not do this movement because they bypassed their move rate, being even the extension of the frontage subject to the rules about moving. The limit is the same as for your manouver.

I changed the "x" for "abcde nopqr", in order to individualize the models.

Also, CD are in capital, showing that they are the command/hero who must stay in the front rank.


Is it legal?
RAW, the first step consumes 1/2 of the movement, the second step consumes 1/2 of the movement, so it is legal.

However, it is indicated p.12 that no model may move further than the its move allocation unless charging, double-marching, pursuing or fleeing.
Actually, there is room for debate: when reforming (not an exception listed above), they may move up to the double of their movement allocation (so it is an additional exception), so possibly maneuvres are not considered as movement.
However, there is no specific indication for a distance limit when changing formation.

Let's check what distance they moved.

Most minis move to a distance totalling 5 "bases" sidewards plus one "base" forwards/backwards. Total distance is 5.09 "bases". No mini moved more than that.
A 20 mm base is roughly 0.8".
Moving 5.09 "bases" is 4.07".
If the "M" limit (p.12) is valid, then elves can do it, not humans nor dwarves.
If the "M" limit is not relevant (p.14 strictly) then anyone can do that.

So I don't see any rule preventing doing that particular move for us.

The unit effectively moves 5 "bases" sidewards, i.e. roughly 4".


Comparison with the regular move
The regular move would be: turn right 90°, move 1/2 of your allocation, turn left 90°. The unit whole move sideways is 1/2 of the movement allocation (1,5" for dwarves, 2,5" for elves...).

It seems that we got an interesting -and legal- way to increase quite a lot the speed sideways.


Dependance on the unit's size:
Please note that it works ideally with a unit of 10 (you can only add/substract 5 max to/from a row).


If the unit is less than 10:

Before move:
abCDe
nopq .

First step:
abCDenopq .

Second step:
-----eCDpq .
------abno .

i.e. one less "base" move sideways.


If the unit is more than 10:
Before move:
abCDef
nopqrs

First step:
abCDefnopqr
------s

Second step:
------fnoCDr
------sabpqe

i.e. the "move" remains at 5 "bases" sideways, i.e. 4".
Note that "f" and "s" did not move at all.


For a unit with more ranks:
Before move:
abCDe
nopqr
stuvx

First step:
abCDenopqr
---stuvx

Second step:
------noCDr
------stuvx
------abpqe

Still the maximum 5 "base" move sideways, i.e. 4".

[Masterofdarkness]

Whenever I play someone with a cheesy list(think twin lash in a 1000 point game) I simply do this. If he is going to be a total dick then I will respond the same. If the game is no fun for me then it sure as hell isnt going to be fun for him. and by total dick I mean rules nazi. "O shoot I cast that in the wrong order" "o well sucks to be you" "darn I forgot to declare that charge" "Pity" "O look my family has been taken hostage by monstrous badgers" "good luck with that then". Basically all gamer courtesies are out the window, cause after all they are there to make the game more enjoyable all around.

[Master of arneim]

That has to be the worst response I have heard to anything. Don't be silly.

If you say so

As to your example of frontage, which is known as changing formation as written in the rulebook, if they had looked at the diagram they would not have allowed this maneuver as it clearly shows models being appropriated to both sides of the unit or removed from both sides. Use the diagrams, they are part of the rules.

Unfortunately for you they looked at the diagrams, read the rule beside and said the same thing I told (the written word rules over diagrams because nothing is said about keeping the centre in the same point during this movement).
The only problem in my opinion is that they did not consider page 12.
If we have to consider every diagrams as like the written rules that'd mean that we should always keep 3 models on our right and 2 on our left if increasing the rank by 5. And if we want to bring up only 3 models? Isn't this silly? Diagrams show how the move could be done, written rules how it must be done.

No the problem is that the rulebooks are generally poorly written in Warhammer. I'm sorry but your interpretation of the rules is still wrong based on both how movement is commonly measured in this game, the description of wheeling and its attached diagram showing where to measure from. I like how you're trying to rule's lawyer your way out of it, but by doing so you make maneuvering regularly sized rectangularly shaped units very complicated and add a whole new argument to the game.

So if something is not "common" is not right? Description of wheeling doesn't say that I'm wrong. Only the "picture" says this.
I know I'm squeezing the rulebook and I do not want to hear that I'm right because I'm trying to forbid some excess. I'm only squeezing it because it's written better than what it looks like.
I understand the problems that would arise considering not the first rank as the wheeling one, but what I say is that if someone try to move at the edge I'm able to read the rulebook properly till the end and stop him.
We can continue the discussion via Pm if you want.

Is it legal?
RAW, the first step consumes 1/2 of the movement, the second step consumes 1/2 of the movement, so it is legal, as long as no model moves further than the double of its move allocation.
Let's check that.

Most minis move to a distance totalling 5 "bases" sidewards plus one "base" forwards/backwards. Total distance is 5.09 "bases". No mini moved more than that.
A base is roughly 0.8" and even dwarves can double-march up to 6", more than 5.09".
So I don't see any rule preventing doing that particular move.

The unit effectively moved 5 "bases" sidewards, i.e. roughly 4".

Pay attention that you cannot reform while using this movement, nor moving more than your M value (this is my thought considering what's written on page 12). Ie dwarves are not allowed in doing this move, nor any unit moving up till 5" that has got the 25mm base (orks, daemons etc).

In the example of the Uk Heat this move has been done by 10 bloodletters. They travelled more than 5".

A base is roughly 0.8" and even dwarves can double-march up to 6", more than 5.09".

If 1 inch is equal to 2,5 cm the distance done by 5 models with a base size of 20mm is still over the 4".

I agree that it can't be forbidden this move to elves fighting in units of 10 on 2 lines, but my opinion limits the use of this movement to a very few situations.

There are other moves that could be considered right if not keeping what stated on pg 12. Think about this: 25 night goblins with 3 fanatics. The player turns showing his shoulders to your army, then he reduces the ranks by 4.

^^^^^
^^^^^
^^^^^
^^^^^
^^^^^
This is the starting formation: the ^ shows the direction of the front rank
They turn (V is the direction of the first rank)
VVVVV
VVVVV
VVVVV
VVVVV
VVVVV

then he reduces his ranks by one... try to do this at home
V
V
V
V
V
V
ecc

Where the top V is in your deployment zone or near. Now he releases his fanatics. Think about something like that with zombies, ghouls or similar units. Isn't that funny?


@ Sharkbelly: sure you can be right, but because I learned that in a tourney the common sense does count 0, I deeply read the rulebook, searching for any solution to this problem. Next time if I face someone of these "jokers" I'll be ready and I won't say "you cannot do this because it's not fair", but "you cannot do this because on page x there is written that". Not so fun you'd say... but it's fun when someone tries those moves?

[Calisson]

Pay attention that you cannot reform while using this movement, nor moving more than your M value (this is my thought considering what's written on page 12). Ie dwarves are not allowed in doing this move, nor any unit moving up till 5" that has got the 25mm base (orks, daemons etc).
...
There are other moves that could be considered right if not keeping what stated on pg 12. Think about this: 25 night goblins with 3 fanatics. The player turns showing his shoulders to your army, then he reduces the ranks by 4. then he reduces his ranks by one...

I edited my post. Thank you for the comments.
So the move is valid for elves with no doubt.

The "double-M" limit is written p.14 for reformation (I took it initially for granted in my post).
No limit is provided p.14 for changing formation (adding/removing up to 5 ranks).
It is not clear whether p.12 applies or not, because p.14's "double-M" rule for reformation is an exception of the "M" rule p.12, which listed many exceptions but not that one.

In French GT conventions & Q & R, 04/04/2008, available on GW website, there is a clear mention that the "double-M" limit applies to ALL kind of maneuvres (end of p.12 to p.14). This is what I had in mind in my initial post.
By the way, this would prevent the gobbo's congo line that you described.

They also mention specifically that when changing formation, the centre of the unit does NOT need to remain at the same place. They specifically say that putting all 5 mini on the same side is valid, RAW-wise.

Isn't there an English equivalent to these conventions?

[Master of arneim]

@ Calisson: I've opened a new thread in the rules forum just to stop this off topic. I invite you and anybody that is interested to join me there. Here is the link
http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?p=723930#723930

[Calisson]

Right.
Apologize for highjacking the thread.

[Dannyfave]

[quote="Archdukechocula"]Beating this guy at his own game doesn't solve Gruff's essential problem. The problem is, his opponent is creating lists and utilizing tactics that's are unenjoyable. Responding with superior cheese, or tailored cheese, is liable to encourage his opponent in finding yet new ways to win at all costs, which is of course what Gruff is trying to avoid. After all, if his opponent is finding satisfaction in hiding his army and winning through phase dominance and denial, he obviously seeks to win however possible, and thus beating him will do nothing but further entrench him in his mindset of finding ways of min/maxing. After all, if he loses, he must not have done it well enough.

I belive that this does solve the problem because if he sees how boring getting beat by this army is he will likely change his tactics. I would personaly bring the same exact list he does just to f**k with him.