PDA

View Full Version : Q's regarding Kayazy Assassins



plastichero
05-18-2010, 06:36 PM
Hello

I am looking for some clarification on the charge rule when dealing with the Kayazy assassins.

When they pop their mini feat and attempt the charge on your caster if they have no room to get into the front arc of your caster can they end up in the back arc of the caster?

If they are allowed to do this, does their charge fail and they end their activation OR can they turn around and attack the caster?

Finally with reading the rules concerning charges, can they at the beginning of their activation turn so that they are not directly facing the caster but the caster is still in their front arc, charge and then face the caster after the charge and still attack.

This has come up recently and I am looking for some clarification regarding this. Any help regarding this is appreciated. Cheers!

T.

TacCom
05-18-2010, 06:49 PM
I've posted in Heroes about this, but I'll bring my point here to clarify about charging in behind someone.

Under Movement, third paragraph, it says "Advancing refers to any movement a model intentionally makes, not to any movement caused by other effects such as being pushed or being slamed. A model can change it's facing at any time during it's advance, but when it moves it must always move in the direction it is facing."

Take the line from how to move during a charge, "the charging model then advances it's SPD plus 3" in that direction, in a straight line." Continue reading that paragraph and it also says that once you enter into melee range with the target, you must remain in melee range or the charge will fail.

After taking that into account, you must be facing the direction you are moving. And if you charge over the model to get into it's back arc, you will fail your charge.

petegrrrr
05-18-2010, 06:52 PM
You can charge his back arc.

However, you may NOT cross over his base to do so.

So if you are behind him, yeah, you can charge his rear arc. But if you are talking about charging THROUGH him and ending up behind him, that is illegal, because you will enter and exit his melee range before ending your charge.

TacCom
05-18-2010, 07:04 PM
It doesn't say that move is illegal in the charge rules. While it does say your cannot volentarily stop until you reach melee range, after that it says you can stop whenever you want. The next line says you must stay in melee range or the charge will fail, but it never specifically mentions that you can't leave period.

So you can move through the charge target, but your charge will fail. A failed charge will end it's activation right away, but the model still is behind the charge target.

rydiafan
05-18-2010, 07:30 PM
So you can move through the charge target, but your charge will fail. A failed charge will end it's activation right away, but the model still is behind the charge target.

The charging model would turn to face its target before its activation ended, but apart from that TacCom is 100% correct.

petegrrrr
05-18-2010, 07:39 PM
My answer is based on the assumption you wanted to get a charge attack on your charge, as the OP had asked about still getting a charge attack.

But yes, you can charge through a model and auto fail.

plastichero
05-18-2010, 07:50 PM
Now having said all that what happens that they turn prior to charging so that they are charging you sideways and then charge your caster still ending up behind the caster. Can they still attack because the caster is still in their front arc even though they ended up in the caster back arc?

I guess it boils down to where exactly the models in questions will end up after a charge when they pop the mini feat and if they can still attack afterwards. Cheers.

T.

Mod_Redphantasm
05-18-2010, 08:07 PM
Now having said all that what happens that they turn prior to charging so that they are charging you sideways and then charge your caster still ending up behind the caster. Can they still attack because the caster is still in their front arc even though they ended up in the caster back arc?

I guess it boils down to where exactly the models in questions will end up after a charge when they pop the mini feat and if they can still attack afterwards. Cheers.

T.


You cannot charge sideways. Before you move with a charge you turn to face the line of your charge. You cannot face one way and charge at a 70* angle to that line.

Thagrosh123
05-18-2010, 09:53 PM
The rules DO NOT state you have to turn to face the direction you are charging. They actually state that you turn to face a direction that allows for you to end your move with the target in your melee range.

That said, the example in the rule book for charging has a model facing one direction but charging at a 45 degree angle then changing its facing when the charge was complete. Based on the rules i see no reason as to why the Kayzay would not be able to charge through the intended target sideways (since their still moving in their front arc) and end their move engaged with the charge target (in their back) then turn to face them therefore ensuring the charge is successful.

On the same note, they would not get a backstrike bonus of any kind since they did not charge the model while they were in its back arc for the whole round.

TheUnknownMercenary
05-18-2010, 10:07 PM
Thagrosh123, a model cannot move sideways. A model has to face the direction it is moving in.

stygmatyr
05-19-2010, 05:12 AM
The rules DO state you have to move in the direction you are facing, its specifically stated in the advancing section and charging section, you then turn to face the model charged after movement, thats what that example is there to show

Thagrosh123
05-19-2010, 06:40 AM
You're right in that the rules DO state you have to move in the direction you face but if you read the rules on facing it clearly states that i am facing something so long as it is in my front arc. On top of that, the rules on movement state i must move in the direction i am facing, meaning any direction in my front arc.

That being said, i see no reference in the rules that would inhibit charging or moving sidways (the rules also make the distinction between moving in that direction or directly moving in that direction, and charging only states moving in that direction meaning anywhere in my front arc.).

whatyoutalkinboutwillis
05-19-2010, 06:58 AM
I believe the rules also have a diagram showing a model moving in the direction it is directly facing. Then it talks about you can rotate the model at any point during its activation to change its facing for movement.

Also I want to say it references measurements will be made from the front of a models base, which in my opinion implies you need to move the direction you are directly facing.

Mael
05-19-2010, 07:22 AM
You're right in that the rules DO state you have to move in the direction you face but if you read the rules on facing it clearly states that i am facing something so long as it is in my front arc. On top of that, the rules on movement state i must move in the direction i am facing, meaning any direction in my front arc.

No, it says the direction you are facing not a direction you are facing. Movement must be perpendicular to your front arc. IIRC this is outlined very well in a diagram in Prime MK2.

Thagrosh123
05-19-2010, 08:10 AM
As per rules regarding facing, i am facing something that is in my front arc of 180 degrees. That being said, i am moving in the direction i am facing so long as i move in my 180 degree front arc. Also, on page 46 it shows a pic of a winter guard facing forwards yet charging at an angle, why would that be?

rydiafan
05-19-2010, 08:25 AM
He declares the charge at an angle, then turns to directly face the route he is taking, then moves.

Mael
05-19-2010, 08:28 AM
Because you can charge anything in your front arc, you just need to turn towards the model first before you take any movement. Nobody is refuting that point.

Thagrosh123
05-19-2010, 12:08 PM
But thats my point, knowhere in the rules does it state that one has to turn to "directly" face the direction i want to move, it instead state i have to turn and face the direction i wish to move. There is a difference. Also, the charge rules don't state i need to turn to face, they only state i need to turn to ensure the model ends in my melee range.

Valander
05-19-2010, 12:19 PM
But thats my point, knowhere in the rules does it state that one has to turn to "directly" face the direction i want to move, it instead state i have to turn and face the direction i wish to move. There is a difference. Also, the charge rules don't state i need to turn to face, they only state i need to turn to ensure the model ends in my melee range.

Actually, the charge rules do state that you turn to directly face your charge target after you complete your movement:


At the end of the charge movement, the charging model turns to face its target directly.

As for the movement shennanigans you're trying to pull, it is pretty clear in the rules and example that you always move the direction you're facing, and the diagram in the Movement section clearly shows this. The fact that there is no "cost" to changing your facing during movement (if allowed; e.g., not in a charge) further supports this.

Mael
05-19-2010, 12:29 PM
Now I'm having an argument with someone about what "facing" means. Sheesh. Can someone point me to the exact page in the rules where facing is defined as the center of your base?

Thagrosh123
05-19-2010, 12:31 PM
Actually, the charge rules do state that you turn to directly face your charge target after you complete your movement:

As for the movement shennanigans you're trying to pull, it is pretty clear in the rules and example that you always move the direction you're facing, and the diagram in the Movement section clearly shows this. The fact that there is no "cost" to changing your facing during movement (if allowed; e.g., not in a charge) further supports this.


Your first point was never in contention and is rather irrelevant as it pertains to this argument.

Your second point regarding my shennanigans is actually NOT clear in the rules otherwise the question would not have come up in the first place. Either way, i don't really care what the answer is but i believe that as per the rules, knowhere does it indicate that i have to move "directly towards". It instead states i have to move in the direction of my facing which encompasses anywhere within my 180 degree front arc.

If you don't agree please point out where it is stated otherwise rather than state the rules say something they don't.

iG4MER
05-19-2010, 12:54 PM
Step 1: PUT down your 40K rule book, now set it on fire. Step 2: forget you ever read the 40K rule book. Now does that help make the Warmachine Rule book a bit more clear?

milothewise
05-19-2010, 01:02 PM
Just responding because you're driving me nuts, Thagrosh. You say this:

But thats my point, knowhere in the rules does it state that one has to turn to "directly" face the direction i want to move, it instead state i have to turn and face the direction i wish to move. There is a difference. Also, the charge rules don't state i need to turn to face, they only state i need to turn to ensure the model ends in my melee range.

Then this:

Your first point was never in contention and is rather irrelevant as it pertains to this argument.

Your second point regarding my shennanigans is actually NOT clear in the rules otherwise the question would not have come up in the first place. Either way, i don't really care what the answer is but i believe that as per the rules, knowhere does it indicate that i have to move "directly towards". It instead states i have to move in the direction of my facing which encompasses anywhere within my 180 degree front arc.

If you don't agree please point out where it is stated otherwise rather than state the rules say something they don't.

I don't have my book, so I won't try to paraphrase the rule that EVERYONE else is reading differently than you somehow, but I want to throw in my vote against you - facing is a vector, not a 180 degree arc. That is the most logical, useful reading of the "you always move in the direction you are facing" rule.

Valander
05-19-2010, 01:03 PM
Your first point was never in contention and is rather irrelevant as it pertains to this argument.

Your very own quote, which I included, said "Also, the charge rules don't state i need to turn to face, they only state i need to turn to ensure the model ends in my melee range." That is what my first point was addressing, because your comment seemed to be contradicting that.



Your second point regarding my shennanigans is actually NOT clear in the rules otherwise the question would not have come up in the first place. Either way, i don't really care what the answer is but i believe that as per the rules, knowhere does it indicate that i have to move "directly towards". It instead states i have to move in the direction of my facing which encompasses anywhere within my 180 degree front arc.

If you don't agree please point out where it is stated otherwise rather than state the rules say something they don't.

Ok, here you go. You're confusing 'facing' with 'front arc'. They are not the same:

A model’s facing is determined by its shoulder orientation. The 180° arc in the direction its shoulders face defines the model’s front arc; the opposite 180° defines its back arc.

Now, further on the same page, it does say that you are considered to be facing another model if it is within your front arc. However, that is not the same as your own model's facing as defined above. In the section on movement:


A model can change its facing at anytime during its advance, but when it moves it must always move in the direction it is facing. Make all measurements from the front of an advancing model’s base.

This refers to your model's facing, as defined above.

Q.E.D.

Kommissar Golovko
05-19-2010, 01:04 PM
Your first point was never in contention and is rather irrelevant as it pertains to this argument.

Your second point regarding my shennanigans is actually NOT clear in the rules otherwise the question would not have come up in the first place. Either way, i don't really care what the answer is but i believe that as per the rules, knowhere does it indicate that i have to move "directly towards". It instead states i have to move in the direction of my facing which encompasses anywhere within my 180 degree front arc.

If you don't agree please point out where it is stated otherwise rather than state the rules say something they don't.

Actually, Lunatic Calm IIRC mentioned that you have to move in such a way as to bring the target into your melee range. Not sure if it was in this forum or the old forums.

iG4MER
05-19-2010, 01:17 PM
@Thagrosh123 if you don't care for the answer then please Sir, why did you bother asking the question. Is there an Uber-Troll award your trying to win? I mean really you have all these people who are trying to help you and then when they show you the error of your ways, your reply is "I dont care what the answer is". Maybe you should stick with that other game I think this one maybe a bit over your head. Wow man, just wow. Read post #24, 3 times and then hit the rule book again.

Hjelmen0
05-19-2010, 01:29 PM
Actually, Lunatic Calm IIRC mentioned that you have to move in such a way as to bring the target into your melee range. Not sure if it was in this forum or the old forums.

We don't really need LC to say that, because it's in the rules:

After declaring a charge, the charging model turns to face any direction that will bring it to within melee range of its target, ignoring terrain, the distance to the charge target, and other models. Combining this with Valander's quote that you always move the way you're facing, well, then there it is :D

EDIT:
@iG4MER
Could you please not badger ThagroshX? While he might be belaboring his argument a bit much, the rules forum is still a place to be constructive. Not to tell people to f* off to another game.

Thagrosh123
05-19-2010, 01:43 PM
@Thagrosh123 if you don't care for the answer then please Sir, why did you bother asking the question. Is there an Uber-Troll award your trying to win? I mean really you have all these people who are trying to help you and then when they show you the error of your ways, your reply is "I dont care what the answer is". Maybe you should stick with that other game I think this one maybe a bit over your head. Wow man, just wow. Read post #24, 3 times and then hit the rule book again.

So after pondering on it i agree with the logic but i did want the clarification as i did believe as per the ruling that i could move in the way i had initially stated.

@iG4MER
I'm not going to waste time on you. Yours are of the kind that talk because they like the sound they make but ultimately you add no value to anything.

iG4MER
05-19-2010, 01:51 PM
@Hjelmen0 I would never tell anyone to F-Off. I just feel that he does not want the help he asked for. When it was given his reply was "I DONT CARE WHAT THE ANSWER IS". Showing me that this is just another Troll looking for lolly pops, and like an idiot, I was that sucker. (NOW on IGNORE)

petegrrrr
05-19-2010, 01:53 PM
calm down. Ask questions. Keep it civil. This is a rules forum, not a flame war.

tuttleboy
05-19-2010, 02:00 PM
I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to move over a model's base unless a rule let's you, such as trample or some such. In Warmachine the rules tell you excactly what you may do, there is none of the "Well the rules don't say that I can't do that" BS in this game.

_Simon
05-19-2010, 02:20 PM
Drop the personal attacks.

Kommissar Golovko
05-19-2010, 04:08 PM
We don't really need LC to say that, because it's in the rules:
Combining this with Valander's quote that you always move the way you're facing, well, then there it is :D


Must be in the old forums then before the Mk 2 rules came out. Anyway, yes, most important thing is it's there in the rules.

Scoce
05-19-2010, 04:58 PM
So if a Kayazy attempted to somersault their way through a caster to end up at their back arc they would:

1. Auto-fail their charge

But would ...

2. The caster also get a free strike?

petegrrrr
05-19-2010, 05:06 PM
Kayazy never take free strikes. They have Parry.

Cuagau
05-19-2010, 06:12 PM
And the minifeat also adds free strike immunity, in case they were feeling a little insecure...
Anyway, as proof of the term facing, from a external logic point of view (yes, I know it doesn't always apply but in this instance, it does)
If 'facing' was the entire 180 degree front arc, then the following statement : "A model can change its facing at anytime during its advance, but when it moves it must always move in the direction it is facing. Make all measurements from the front of an advancing model’s base" would mean that a model has to move in every direction it is front arc at the same time.
The important part is "DIRECTION," which I believe denotes the vector people have been talking about. So whilst a model may have a 180 degree facing, it only has a linear vector for the direction of that facing, which you must advance down.

plastichero
05-20-2010, 05:12 AM
Okay

Now that the dust has settled here a bit I guess to keep it simple some Yes and No responses would be great.

When they pop their mini feat and attempt the charge on your caster if they have no room to get into the front arc of your caster can they end up in the back arc of the caster? Yes/No?

If they are allowed to do this, does their charge fail and they end their activation OR can they turn around and attack the caster?

Yes, charge fails and activation ends can still turn but cannot attack caster
No, charge is legit and can turn and attack caster

Thanks folks and please keep it civil. This is to better the game and benefit us all. Cheers.

T.

Mootaz
05-20-2010, 05:32 AM
When they pop their mini feat and attempt the charge on your caster if they have no room to get into the front arc of your caster can they end up in the back arc of the caster? Yes/No?

If they are allowed to do this, does their charge fail and they end their activation OR can they turn around and attack the caster?




Yes, charge fails and activation ends can still turn but cannot attack caster

This is the correct answer.

plastichero
05-20-2010, 06:41 AM
Thanks for the quick response. Glad it has been sorted. Cheers.

T.

rydiafan
05-20-2010, 07:09 AM
Yes, charge fails and activation ends can still turn but cannot attack casterThis is the correct answer.

Not to be picky, but the correct answer would have "must turn" in place of "can still turn"

Mootaz
05-20-2010, 07:26 AM
Not to be picky, but the correct answer would have "must turn" in place of "can still turn"
You are correct.

Caecus Scius
05-20-2010, 08:22 AM
The way I read the question, it was not answered satisfactory. it is possible to charge a caster in his rear arc, you do not have to end your charge move in the FRONT of the model you are charging. If during the charge, the model legally moves, and ends up in melee range and in the rear arc, its a legal charge. to do this with kayazy, you would have to be to the side, and not directly in front of the caster.... I wish I could draw a picture to show it...


I think the OP thinks that you can't charge someone in their rear or something...

You can't just protect the front arc of your caster and expect that there is NO POSSIBLE way the kayazy can charge you. They cannot charge through you, end up on the other side and still keep you in melee range, so they would fail, but if one was to the side a little he could make a legal charge.

petegrrrr
05-20-2010, 10:06 AM
You can charge his back arc.

However, you may NOT cross over his base to do so.

So if you are behind him, yeah, you can charge his rear arc. .

Nah, we answered him. It was just a long time ago :)
But it does come up. Some of my players asked about it when the new rules first hit.

plastichero
05-20-2010, 10:17 AM
Caecus Scius

The way I read the question, it was not answered satisfactory. it is possible to charge a caster in his rear arc, you do not have to end your charge move in the FRONT of the model you are charging. If during the charge, the model legally moves, and ends up in melee range and in the rear arc, its a legal charge. to do this with kayazy, you would have to be to the side, and not directly in front of the caster.... I wish I could draw a picture to show it...


I think the OP thinks that you can't charge someone in their rear or something...

You can't just protect the front arc of your caster and expect that there is NO POSSIBLE way the kayazy can charge you. They cannot charge through you, end up on the other side and still keep you in melee range, so they would fail, but if one was to the side a little he could make a legal charge.
No, fully understand that this was stemming from the front arc and with the way the assassins feat worked. Cheers.

T.

Scoce
05-20-2010, 05:48 PM
So for a charge to work the attacking model's target must always be in his front arc or

For a charge to work once the attacking model's target is in his melee range it must remain there until the end of the charge?

drugar101
05-20-2010, 06:13 PM
from pdf but pretty sure book is same:


Once the charge target is in the charging model’s melee range, it must stay in the charging model’s melee range for the entire charge or the charge fails.

drugar101
05-20-2010, 06:17 PM
so if something gave the kayazy assassins 360 front arc, they could mini-feat and charge models running thru them to the charge targets back arc.

rydiafan
05-20-2010, 06:42 PM
so if something gave the kayazy assassins 360 front arc, they could mini-feat and charge models running thru them to the charge targets back arc.

Yes they could.

Caecus Scius
05-21-2010, 09:56 AM
from pdf but pretty sure book is same:

This is NOT in the rule book... This is why I was posting that I am not sure everyone got the answer the same...

tuttleboy
05-21-2010, 10:09 AM
from pdf but pretty sure book is same:

Please don't quote anything from the PDF. While many things are still the same, many are not and it just leads to confusion, especially for newer players that tend to think the PDF is the same as the P:MKII.

vintersbastard
05-21-2010, 10:09 AM
This is NOT in the rule book... This is why I was posting that I am not sure everyone got the answer the same...

Actually, drugar101's quote is in Prime Mk II. Page 47, first paragraph, middle of the second half.

Things would be a lot easier if people would tell from which PDF they're quoting, as the November one is pretty accurate.

drugar101
05-21-2010, 11:11 AM
posting from the hordes pdf is better than posting that something is not in the book when in fact it is.

The hordes pdf is the best most of us horde players have. We can't all afford to buy 2 rule books.

Scoce
05-22-2010, 03:50 PM
Wait so does the charge movement include the change of facing at the end?

I brought up the issue of the failed-charge-after-going-through-the-target but they said the change of facing at the end counts as part of the charge so doesn't fail it...

Is the official ruling we can't do this?

Caeldan
05-22-2010, 04:02 PM
Wait so does the charge movement include the change of facing at the end?

I brought up the issue of the failed-charge-after-going-through-the-target but they said the change of facing at the end counts as part of the charge so doesn't fail it...

Is the official ruling we can't do this?

The charge rules state that if at any point your target leaves your melee range after entering it, the charge is failed.

So as soon as you move from the front arc to the back arc of the model, passing through it - you're now both back to back, and therefore the target is out of your melee range. Hence failed charge.

However the rule also states at the end of the charge movement to directly face the target. So that's why you make the facing change.

It's very explicit in the rulebook.




Once the charge target is in the charging model's melee range, it[ed:the target] must stay in the charging model's melee range for the entire charge or the charge fails...At the end of the charge movement, the charging model turns to face its target directly'


Between those points it states that once you contact a model/obstacle/obstruction you stop - and the kill stroke wording actually doesn't state that you can move through your charge target... so I don't think you can even actually pass through your charge target then.