PDA

View Full Version : Fleeing means run, by why can you run zero inches?



PhoenixWyde
06-14-2010, 08:13 AM
We came across this situation last night, (i don't have a rule book to hand so wording won't be perfect)

"If a model/unit fails it command check, it must turn away from the terror causing model and RUN."

"However, the model/unit fleeing donot have to run their full distance and may RUN zero inches if they so chose."


How on earth does this make any sense what so ever. "Argh, scary Terror causing Deathjack, argh, run away cause were scared, but we will just sit here with our backs to it, even thought were scared ****less by it."

Just think for a second and understand how daft that sounds. I play Warhammer Fantasy from time to time, and as bad as some rules are in that game, this one takes the cake.

Hopefully someone who wrote the rulebook ca tell me the reason behind this daft rule r ifthere will be some kind of errata when the Hordes book comes out, but that would just make all the people who bought the WarMachine one feel cheated.


PhoenixWyde.

Weaselcreature
06-14-2010, 08:17 AM
Fleeing doesn't necessarily mean running away. I could mean cowering or behaving in a way that is combat ineffectual. When you run, you cannot perform actions/attacks.

In Mark I, models were required to run away. This often meant the death of a unit, because it would also incur freestrikes, with the bonus to hit and boosted damage, very few survived. This made Terror causing units very powerful.

Now in Mark II, a model/unit is just made combat ineffectual (running away or just cowering), but there is a chance they may survive a bit longer.

absent
06-14-2010, 08:17 AM
There won't be any errata, this is the way the game works.

You aren't nessicarily running for the hills, sometimes they are cowering in terror or falling back to cover, rather than just strait running. If you want your units to run strait away, die while doing it, and evaporate without any other rolls being made i'd suggest other games, it just doesn't work that way in warmachine, because it used to, and it had too much impact on the game, so almost everything fielded was fearless, and it defeated the entire purpose of psychology. You don't need a developer to tell you why, just someone that played in mk1.

Also is this a rules question? Shouldn't it be in general chat?

KujakuDM
06-14-2010, 08:21 AM
Dont think to far into it, it works as written mostly as you stated.

This comes up about every month or so, and honestly you are not going to get any conformation as to the reason behind it.

They cower, best answer to get.

Also you no longer have to put your back to the cause either.

There will be no errata for this rule, it is great as written and doesn't make you lose the models immediately.

And before you try and debate, again... this thread has come up many times before and there is nothing really left to discuss about it.

Yaum
06-14-2010, 08:30 AM
They cower, best answer to get.
Yup. At least Cygnaran do. Khadorans claim that they stare into the face of death (while thinking of their mamas, in fact).
Meaning you don't have to turn your back on your enemy. You can just opt to not move at all.

Seriously, I've come upon weird situations in WHFB too where psychology didn't make sense at all. So it's a give & take.

Valander
06-14-2010, 08:35 AM
We came across this situation last night, (i don't have a rule book to hand so wording won't be perfect)

"If a model/unit fails it command check, it must turn away from the terror causing model and RUN."

PhoenxiWylde.
Just a small point of clarification here: You do not have to turn away from the terror causing model in Mk II. If a model flees, the only requirements upon it are:

1. Must run during its activation, though can run 0" if it wants.
2. Can't advance towards enemy models.
3. While fleeing, can't make actions, advance outside of normal movement, make attacks, give orders, cast spells.

All that's on p. 85 of the rulebook under Fleeing.

Edit: Basically, #2 shows the reason why you're allowed a 0" run if fleeing. It would be possible in some situations to not be able to move at all without violating this rule. It's a cleaner solution to simply allow a run of any distance up to 2x SPD (which is how run is defined anyway) than make a special clause to deal with this case.

Not Dice
06-14-2010, 09:04 AM
If it helps, don't call it "fleeing". Call it something that doesn't relate to movement but implies lowered morale. "Broken", "routed", "shaken", whatever. It doesn't sound like you have an issue with the rules, just with the semantics.

PhoenixWyde
06-14-2010, 09:18 AM
Thanks for the replies. Never came to our mind that the things scared could just by cowering like little chickens.

Stevo
06-15-2010, 12:55 AM
Fleeing is pretty terrible in MK II. You can't make Free Strikes, you don't engage. You can't use most of your unit's abilities. The idea to me is that the unit wants to run, but understands that running might get more of the unit killed.

Klebert L. Hall
06-15-2010, 03:19 AM
Fleeing means run, by why can you run zero inches?

Because it says so, in the rules.
-Kle.

Cheeslord
06-15-2010, 04:18 AM
I like having more control over troops - too many compulsory moves can make you frustrated and helpless as your troops do stupid things while the game plays itself (especially if my opponent is good at exploiting compulsory moves). So I like the morale (and melee) rules in Warmachine.

Mark.

Mod_Redphantasm
06-15-2010, 06:20 AM
Thanks for the replies. Never came to our mind that the things scared could just by cowering like little chickens.

It is, in fact, possible to be so scared that running away never occurs to you. I would imagine troops just dropping to the ground weeping at the sheer horror confronting them. You're so scared that your flight-fight response doesn't even work anymore.

Lanz
06-15-2010, 09:30 AM
Cowering really does make a lot of sense, actually.

There's also the possibility that they are being ordered forwards, or were ordered to hold their ground, and are scared enough to be too shaken to really attack(or are just swining/shooting too wildly to even justify making attack rolls), but not enough to turn and abandon their point.

They could also just be in shock at whatever terrified them. If artillery wiped out most of a squad and the handful remaining failed morale but didn't move, you could easily assume they are dazed in a state of shellshock after being barraged and bearly surviving(and watching their teammates drop around them). In the case of a Vanquisher shot, they might even be rolling around on the ground trying uselessly to put the fire out :3

the point is; that rule was not placed in the game for fluff, it was placed in the game for rule mechanics and to give the players more control. That said, there are reasonable enough explanations for why someone would be scared enough not to fight, but not scared enough to flee. Just use your imagination to fill in the blanks.

Blaque
06-15-2010, 10:35 AM
I use the term "flinch" when a unit fails its terror check myself. Not sure why, but Exalted's mass combat system had rout and I used the term colloquially there. It seems about most approrpaite when yout hink on how units can recover from it and all that.

And stuff.

Valander
06-15-2010, 10:56 AM
I use the term "flinch" when a unit fails its terror check myself. Not sure why, but Exalted's mass combat system had rout and I used the term colloquially there. It seems about most approrpaite when yout hink on how units can recover from it and all that.

And stuff.
I think I am going to start calling it "Freaked Out" rather than Fleeing. ;)

Stevo
06-15-2010, 11:05 AM
Personally I call it ****ting their ****ing pants!

Kuwanger23
06-15-2010, 02:57 PM
call it tactical retreat, or voluntary fall back. But either way a trained soldier that fails his morale test should be able to do the smartest thing to salvage what is left of his unit, be it falling back and running to a more secure location, staying put where as not to be ripped apart by free strikes until help arrives. The actual flavor behind it makes perfect sense and balances the game. The in game also makes sense too. you just made your opponents unit useless next turn and it can't shoot you, charge you or any of that. And they may not even regroup that turn either. So you get a free turn to finish it off or ignore it and deal with another threat.

Capsfan34
06-16-2010, 03:30 AM
Or you could be cold hearted and if they fail to "route" two turns in a row (stupid dice) you can get mad and shoot them in the back...and I only did it once LOL.

Butcher of Koff-Koff
06-18-2010, 08:48 AM
Just a small point of clarification here: You do not have to turn away from the terror causing model in Mk II. If a model flees, the only requirements upon it are:

1. Must run during its activation, though can run 0" if it wants.
2. Can't advance towards enemy models.
3. While fleeing, can't make actions, advance outside of normal movement, make attacks, give orders, cast spells.

All that's on p. 85 of the rulebook under Fleeing.

Edit: Basically, #2 shows the reason why you're allowed a 0" run if fleeing. It would be possible in some situations to not be able to move at all without violating this rule. It's a cleaner solution to simply allow a run of any distance up to 2x SPD (which is how run is defined anyway) than make a special clause to deal with this case.

Since rule 2 states you cannot advance toward enemy models, doesn't that mean you must turn your back to them during the fleeing movement even if you move 0"? Otherwise it would be an full advance of 0" towards an enemy model which violates rule number 2.

I'm a bit confused on that.

Weaselcreature
06-18-2010, 08:55 AM
No, because an advance of 0" is not towards anythings. You may be facing them, but you did not move towards them.

If that were the case, then a model that has enemies surrounding it would be unable to properly flee, as it would be impossible to turn away from all enemy models.

Butcher of Koff-Koff
06-18-2010, 09:01 AM
No, because an advance of 0" is not towards anythings. You may be facing them, but you did not move towards them.

If that were the case, then a model that has enemies surrounding it would be unable to properly flee, as it would be impossible to turn away from all enemy models.

Actually, you did advance. You advanced 0" towards the enemy model. Just because you didn't move doesn't mean it's not an advance. You can absolutely advance 0".

The rule for fleeing states you MUST run or full advance away from enemy models even if only 0". If you don't turn away, you have still advanced. You just advanced 0" towards your enemy.

Perhaps the intent is that generally at the end of a run or full advance move, you can turn in whatever direction you like, so facing the enemy would still be fine. By taking this as the meaning, you're just skipping the step of turning the model away and then reorienting it back toward the enemy. If that is the case, I can accept it.

Any other thoughts?

NmoLvr
06-18-2010, 09:07 AM
But then it wouldn't be an advance would it? The rule states you MUST run/full advance away even if 0". If you don't turn away, you have still advanced. You just advanced 0" towards your enemy.

An advance of 0" is still an advance, yes, but it isn't toward (or away) from anything because your position on the board didn't change.

Butcher of Koff-Koff
06-18-2010, 09:09 AM
An advance of 0" is still an advance, yes, but it isn't toward (or away) from anything because your position on the board didn't change.

I guess that will have to suffice. A PPS even chimed in earlier and didn't contradict what you or the others are saying.

vintersbastard
06-18-2010, 09:10 AM
Advancing towards something means shortening the distance between the two things. If you advance 0", you're not doing that. (See p. 48 of Prime)

(Don't confuse that with facing towards something. That fleeing models can do as much as they want.)

Butcher of Koff-Koff
06-18-2010, 09:11 AM
Advancing towards something means shortening the distance between the two things. If you advance 0", you're not doing that.

(Don't confuse that with facing towards something. That fleeing models can do as much as they want.)

These rules are tricky sometimes. In this case, "towards" was the key word there.

Thanks for the clarification guys.