Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If completely encircled within a unit of skirmishers, will the character inside be protected from enemy shooting.  Will units on the same level have line of sight?  Will units on a higher level, such as a hill, have line of sight?  Will it work equally well against magic?

Thanks,
AZ

Posted By Arizona on 01/15/2007 5:04 AM
1) If completely encircled within a unit of skirmishers, will the character inside be protected from enemy shooting.  Did he join the skirmishers?*  If so, then all shooting must be directed at the unit.  Only things that specifically allow you to target characters inside units, such as the Hochland Long Rifle, could pick him out.

2) Will units on the same level have line of sight?  Not if he joined the unit.  If he did not join the unit*, no... and neither will the character have line of sight out through the skirmishers, so he cannot shoot or charge.

3) Will units on a higher level, such as a hill, have line of sight?  Not if he joined the unit.  If he did not join the unit*, then yes, units on a higher level may draw line of sight to him, and vice versa.

4) Will it work equally well against magic? Depends on the spell.  Magic missles are subject to all the same targeting conditions as regular missles.  Spell that say "anywhere on the table" or "any unit within X inches" can certainly target him, if he did not join the skirmishers.

* A character counts as a unit all by himself.  Units cannot voluntarily interpenetrate. 

You cannot surround a character with a unit of skirmishers without having him join the skirmishers, any more than you can surround a block of swordsmen with a unit of skirmishers.  Or have a block of swordsmen surround a character without him joining the swordsmen, for that matter.

In other words, you can't do it with only one unit of skirmishers.  You'd need two, one to block line of sight  from front and right flank, the other to block line of sight from rear and left flank.  But since the character still counts as a unit all by himself, he is still vulnerable to shooting from above, and magic.

I can find nothing in the rules to support your statements that you cannot surround a character with a unit of skirmishers. Or that you can't surround a ranked unit with a (sufficiently numerous) unit of skirmishers, for that matter. Can you quote a rule to the contrary?

Arizona, Fellblade's other statements are correct, as simply reading your rulebook would also tell you.

Posted By Mannahnin on 01/17/2007 2:42 PM
 Can you quote a rule to the contrary?

No, I cannot.  I realize that I am going to violate one or two of Centurion99's Guidelines on How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate, but here goes anyway.

Characters are defined as units in their own right on p. 72 of the BRB.  Skirmisher must form a loose group or line at the end of their move (p. 63), -but there is no reason the line cannot bend to form a circle (though some may argue that, geometrically, a circle is not a line).

Permissive rules set, yes?  The rules tell us what we are allowed to do, rather than trying to cover all possible things we are not allowed to do.  I cannot find any rule that says units may not interpenetrate and mingle.  However, I cannot find any rule that says they may, either.  You can't stack or overlap units; I believe that if you were to try to park two formed units one on top of the other, your opponent would call foul, and if you tried to mix two skirmish units together, he'd call foul again- but I can't find anything anywhere in the rulebook that explicity says you may not do so.  I also do not see any example in the rulebook where units voluntarily interpenetrate.  However, the rulebook does have example of units interpenetrating- but only during compulsory moves like fleeing, or fanatics hitting; and at the end of the move the units are automatically separated by 1 inch. 

I would argue that if a unit is encircled by a skirmish unit (being completely within the circle),  then the units are interpenetrated.  And that is the crux of it, right there.  I am willing to be proved wrong.  I will point out anecdotally that I have never seen anyone try this in an actual game, and we have tried a lot of wacky tactics over the years.  If it were legal and/or effective, we should see it happen a lot more often.

I feel that trying to surround a formed unit with a skirmish unit is not legal, not allowed.  Not in the spirit of the rules.  I would like to know if anyone has tried this tactic in a tournament, and what was the ruling by the judges.  Has this been addressed in some FAQ somewhere?

Having said all that, let me add that I can see only a limited advantage to this tactic, and lots of disadvantages.  The surrounded unit is not so much protected as trapped.  It has no line of sight, it cannot shoot, it cannot declare charges, it cannot move until the skirmishers move, it gains no protection from shooting from above, guess-range & template weapons, and many spells.  If a spell effect prevents the skirmishers from moving, the formed unit will be unable to move.  If the skirmish unit is big enough to surround a formed unit, and flees, it will automatically flee through the formed unit, and be large enough to cause a panic check.  All of this applies equally whether the surrounded unit is a block or a single character- and if it's a mounted character, most of the same-level shooting protection is gone, too.  So if it turns out that this tactic is legal under the rules, go for it... I believe that in practice, it will not be worthwhile.

[Edit]: I tossed this question out to my local group.  Consensus there is, this may be one case where "The rules don't say I can't" is a valid argument.  Is it RAW legal? Yes.  Is it open to abuse? Yes.  Do the disadvantages outweigh the advantages? Yes.  If your opponent tried this in a tournament, would you ask for a ruling/give him a bad sportsmanship score? Yes.  Would it be considered a 'cheesy' tactic? Definitely.

See, your edit is why I don't believe we have a permissive ruleset. If that were the case, there'd be no loop holes that people use as valid tactics..... heck, no where in the rules can I find that you can play the game with unpainted models...... somethings just have to be judgement calls..... and the "the rules might not say you can't, but they don't say you can" arguement just doesn't work. If you want an even better example.... no where in the rules does it say you can breathe while playing the game. While this might be a bit extreme..... it's just a valid arguement as anyone who does the "permissive rules" arguement

Where is the rule that two of your own units must be moved at least 1" apart at the end of the turn? I know that applies to enemy units and your units, but I'm not aware fo any such restriction on your own guys.

Since you may move pursuant tot he movement rules, and as there is no rule preventing you from interpenetrating, this is a situation where the permissive rules set allows you to interpenetrate, and does not prevent you from doing so. It is entirely legal, valid, and unobjectionable. You cannot interpenetrate two ranked units, because the movement rules don't allow you to co-exist models. Therefore, that is not a valid argument that skirmishing units cannot interpenetrate.

In short, it's a valid tactic. Like you said, it's minimally useful, but it is useful for: 1. wizards with spells with no line of sight restrictions; 2. particularly nefarious skaven players and the lightning cannon (if I remember its rules correctly, don't quote me on that) 3. battle standard bearers 4. weak vampire lords, that you don't want to die, etc. I was about to say the Anvil of Doom, but Dwarfs don't get skirmishers.

Angron: by 'permissive rules' I mean that the rules tell us what we can do- for example, in order to be cast into close combat, a spell must have "may be cast into close combat" in its wording. If the rules don't tell us we can do something, then we cannot do it. I get your point, I'm just not sure how it applies to this situation.

Antonin: I argue the converse. To allow units to interpenetrate, a permissive rules set would state explicitly that units may co-exist in the same geographical location at the same time. Since there is no rule like that, units cannot interpenetrate. What specific movement rule or rules are you referring to, when you the movement rules don't allow you to co-exist models? Would you argue that skirmishers can move through a formed unit in the same way they can move through difficult terrain?
Now, if your skirmish unit has enough movement to completely surround a ranked unit without going through it, maybe. The question becomes one of semantics- is a 'surrounded' unit interpenetrating the 'surrounding' unit? I argue that they are, and the situation is therefore illegal. It looks as though I am in the minority.

You are right about moving the fleeing units, the diagrams show them just coming out on the other side of the friendly unit, there is no mention of a 1" gap anywhere.

Can you find a reference to unit "interpenetration" in the rules, and why it's not allowed?

As you said, models can't be on top of one another. They also can't move over each other (except for fliers and other explicit exceptions). But the movement rules tell you how skirmishers move, and those rules do certainly make it possible for them to surround smaller units. That is permission. I feel that a unit of skirmishers surrounding another unit is extremely logical and makes perfect sense. Like every case of one group of men being surrounded by another group of men you've ever seen in a movie.

As you noted, it has few advantages and lots of disadvantages. I see nothing cheesy or unsportsmanlike about it. It's a little "gamey", but lots of things in this game strike me as harder to justify using real-world logic than this does.

Thanks for the feedback.  This will help in getting a bit more mileage out of Skaven Weapon Teams.

AZ

Until the gutter runners get shot away and leave you exposed.

Posted By Arizona on 01/20/2007 3:58 PM
Thanks for the feedback.  This will help in getting a bit more mileage out of Skaven Weapon Teams.

AZ

But how do you plan to shoot if you ca't see your target?

I imagine he intends to wrap a unit of gutter runners around them in a horseshoe shape, allowing the weapon team to have LOS out in one direction (at the intended target) while being hidden from other directions. Which should work if your opponent only has one shooting/magic unit with which to hit the gutter runners/weapon team. Even if they don't, it's at least forcing the enemy to devote a second unit's shooting. Not too bad.

I had never thought about it before, but this is a tactic that I often use myself.  My chaos lord on mount goes nowhere whithout his skirmisher meat shield.  The Lord has never been entirely surrounded by this meatshield, but often is in a horseshoe shape to protect him from annoying Bretonian archers or petty foot troops while he is on the move or single handedly demolishing a Lance of Bretonian Knights.  I've done this with Lords on foot as well, not as any way of trying to abuse rules, it just occured to me to do so as a viable tactic.

No, the Lord is not part of the unit, but my opponant also knows that.  If the Lord were on foot and there may be a question about it, I inform my opponant of the fact that the lord is a separate unit.