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.

Played a game the other night and something came up that caused contention and I was hoping I could get some opinions about it:

A Chariot (Doom Wheel) was in combat with a unit to the front and had another unit on its flank. In the combat round it finished off the unit to the front and ended up winning the combat and the player wished to turn to face the unit that was in its flank. But the rules for Free Manoeuvres on p. 46 state "These free manoeuvres can be executed only if the unit is engaged to just one of its sides (which it was), and only in order to bring more models in base contact with the enemy (which it wouldn't). They cannot be executed if the winning unit is engaged on two or more sides or if the manoeuvre would result in reducing the number of models in base contact with the enemy!" Again, the chariot was only engaged on one side (its flank), but turning its facing would neither reduce or increase the number of models able to fight for the winning side (since the chariot is only one model), but it would reduce the number of enemy models in b2b since its front would present a smaller side to align against.

With that, I'd like to hear how other people play, or would play, this scenario.

Thanks for your help!

It cannot turn around, as it has no permission to do so.

Note this errata:

Page 46. In the second paragraph of Free Manoeuvres,
the following fragment will be deleted in reprints: ‘, and
only in order to bring more models in base contact with
the enemies’.

It doesn't appear there is a stipulation to keep enemy models in base to base, just friendly. In light of this, and assuming all the quotes above are inclusive and correct, I think the turn is, in fact, legal. With the errata there is no longer the requirement to increase the number of models in contact with the enemy, and the final caveat only requires that you do not decrease the number of models in contact with the enemy- not that you avoid decreasing the number of models in contact with you.

However, this should all be moot with the arrival of 8th...

RZ

Minor snag: Doomwheel is not a chariot. A Doomwheel has a lot of specific rules to it. I would make sure you read them in depth to see how to count it.

If the model started combat engaged on 2 sides, but 1 side breaks it might be able to turn. The Doomwheel is its own units. In a lot of ways the Doomwheel is a monster. The monster would be able to turn

RZ

The language present in your errata still doesn't read to me as permissive.

The word present is "more"

The verbiage required to be present to make this situation applicable is "the same or more"

I'm not bringing more of my models in contact with the enemy. I'm still only bringing one. The lesson of the day is "Don't get charged in the flank," Which is pretty standard all the way around.

@Red_Zeke: Ah, the errata basically invalidates my whole argument! Well, thanks for pointing that out.

@njpc: Yes, I'm not familiar with the Doomwheel rules at all. That was only the second time I've played a Skaven player in 4 years. He said it acted just like a chariot and I took him on his word. I'll definitely try to find a way to read up in it before our next game; that thing is NASTY!

Thanks for the help everyone!

Ragnar, the language is deleted. So now the rule would read:

"These free manoeuvres can be executed only if the unit is engaged to just one of its sides. They cannot be executed if the winning unit is engaged on two or more sides or if the manoeuvre would result in reducing the number of models in base contact with the enemy!"

Which would indicate the chariot could indeed turn to face. It is engaged to just one of its sides. And it would not result in reducing the number of models in base contact with the enemy (there would still be 1).

Edit: Ah, Killjoy beat me to it. That errata is a deletion.