Fix mistaken application of Assault move rules to War Engine units

[digi-brain]

On my first pass through the war engine rules, I assumed that the standard Assault move rules apply to war engines. See the latter sentence:

Movement of War Engine units in the Assault phase

In the Assault phase, you may choose not to move units in a War Engine detachment — but then you may not initiate close combats or firefights with them either. Otherwise, War Engine units are subject to the same movement restrictions in the Assault phase as other units.

This can't be correct, because the limitations on how war engines can turn make them unworkable. In effect, it seems that the Assault moves rules apply to Vehicle and Infantry units that are on Assault orders, but not to War Engine units which (at the moment) don't use orders anyway.

Fixes required, to remove this specific mistake and clarify the situation more generally.

@IJW-Wartrader Is there any aspect of the Assault move limitations that should apply to War Engine units?

[IJW-Wartrader]

@IJW-Wartrader Is there any aspect of the Assault move limitations that should apply to War Engine units?

All of them? ;-P

Setting snark aside, we've been applying them all in games for months now. Are there specific issues you're thinking of?

[digi-brain]

Off the top of my head:

1. You don't have to move WEs in the Assault phase. But if you do, do they have to move at least 5 cm (or into combat) where possible? Can you turn the unit on the spot (a 'move') without then also having to meet the 5 cm requirement?
2. If you do move the WE, do you have to move it towards an enemy unit? (Given the restrictions on turning, this was the bit that seemed most unworkable to us, depending on which way the WE was facing to start with.)
3. If you do move the WE, are you still restricted by the 'cannot move past' element? I'm not sure I could recall and describe the specific positions, but we had a situation where it seemed like a very odd contrivance indeed to say that this lumbering behemoth could not move past but due to the turning restrictions must instead either not move at all, or move in an oddly contrived way to at least attempt to move 'towards' an enemy or at the very least 'nearer to some enemies that it was at the start of its move'?

As you pointed out in our Facebook private message thread, there's a bit missing from the original about about "their own movement rules take priority". But I think this still leaves some room for interpretation.

[IJW-Wartrader]

I'm working from the basis that there is no text anywhere that says WEs get to ignore the standard restrictions on movement in the Assault phase.

1. You don't have to move WEs in the Assault phase. But if you do, do they have to move at least 5 cm (or into combat) where possible? Can you turn the unit on the spot (a 'move') without then also having to meet the 5 cm requirement?

Yes, they have to move 5 cm if possible. Turning on the spot won't stop you needing to move at least 5 cm unless you had to turn so far that you've got no movement left.

2. If you do move the WE, do you have to move it towards an enemy unit? (Given the restrictions on turning, this was the bit that seemed most unworkable to us, depending on which way the WE was facing to start with.)

As closely as possible, yes. Turn limitations will sometimes mean that it's not directly towards an enemy unit.

3. If you do move the WE, are you still restricted by the 'cannot move past' element? I'm not sure I could recall and describe the specific positions, but we had a situation where it seemed like a very odd contrivance indeed to say that this lumbering behemoth could not move past but due to the turning restrictions must instead either not move at all, or move in an oddly contrived way to at least attempt to move 'towards' an enemy or at the very least 'nearer to some enemies that it was at the start of its move'?

Yes, for the same reason that Bikes and Jetbikes etc. aren't allowed to freely move round behind the enemy to stop them being able to make a Retreat move. Don't forget there are WEs with 25 cm Speed, plus 5 cm for being on a road, plus 10 cm from a Fate Card.

[digi-brain]

It felt very weird to us, and overly contrived given the positions of our units. In our case it mean that my opponent couldn't take a course that seemed perfectly sensible given the terrain and all, but instead could only veer off towards my units on a course that wouldn't be sensible — or not move at all.

Okay, we're not doing a Double move in EA here — but still, it did seem very odd to us, to the point that my opponent felt that Assault move limitations are not meant for WEs and we abandoned it.

---

As closely as possible, yes. Turn limitations will sometimes mean that it's not directly towards an enemy unit.

Seems like that can't really happen — if you've got enough movement available to make a move that is 'not directly towards an enemy unit' then surely you'd be required to use that movement to turn more so that you do face towards an enemy unit...?

---

Yes, for the same reason that Bikes and Jetbikes etc. aren't allowed to freely move round behind the enemy to stop them being able to make a Retreat move. Don't forget there are WEs with 25 cm Speed, plus 5 cm for being on a road, plus 10 cm from a Fate Card.

I had forgotten XD But our situation wasn't about 'not moving past' in the sense of preventing an 'unfair' flanking move while close to the enemy — it was just about how weird this and the 'directly towards and enemy' requirement seemed to make many of our Assault phase moves with war engines.

---

Unfortunately, I can't remember the exact situations to describe them. If you say it works fine then we must've gotten some fundamental part wrong. Ah well, we'll see what happens the next time we get to play I suppose.

[IJW-Wartrader]

Okay, we're not doing a Double move in EA here — but still, it did seem very odd to us, to the point that my opponent felt that Assault move limitations are not meant for WEs and we abandoned it.

The problem is that the WE rules are written as exceptions to the standard rules, and no exception is mentioned (or even hinted at) for Assault moves.

---

As closely as possible, yes. Turn limitations will sometimes mean that it's not directly towards an enemy unit.

Seems like that can't really happen — if you've got enough movement available to make a move that is 'not directly towards an enemy unit' then surely you'd be required to use that movement to turn more so that you do face towards an enemy unit...?

Sure it can. If you choose to move, you have to move at least 5 cm. I can't see how turning on the spot fulfils that.

---

Anyway, I'll keep an eye out for odd situations!

[digi-brain]

The problem is that the WE rules are written as exceptions to the standard rules, and no exception is mentioned (or even hinted at) for Assault moves.

I'm just saying that we were so baffled by the situation that, in the absence of anything explicit either way, we felt compelled to drop the limitations where WEs were concerned out of sheer frustration. And then naturally the debate started as to whether in fact the limits for 'Assault moves' only apply to units that are actually on 'Assault orders', and therefore not to WEs which don't use orders. I didn't find that argument convincing myself, but that was where we were at by that point.

Meanwhile, the flyer rules made no sense to us either, given that the implications of the actual text (all in a line, all stop together) don't work well and don't match the example diagrams (seemingly, whatever formation the player likes). This didn't exactly boost our faith in GWs writing or lack thereof around exceptions either.

---

Sure it can. If you choose to move, you have to move at least 5 cm. I can't see how turning on the spot fulfils that.

If a turn does indeed counts as a move, then you can use up 5 cm by turning more than 45 degrees, to face the enemy more directly. So, if a free 45 degree turn wouldn't point the WE directly towards an enemy unit, then wouldn't you have to turn more towards the enemy and use the move that way rather than conveniently choose to move "not directly towards an enemy unit"...?

If a turn does not count as a move, then surely you'd still have to prioritise turning to face the enemy first, it's just that you'd still also have to actually move the model 5 cm.

[IJW-Wartrader]

Hmm, I think it's diagram time. This is a niche situation, although it's substantially more likely with Speed 10 cm WEs like Plague Towers or Leviathans.

A Speed 15 cm WE has one unit behind it and nothing in front.

If you use the free 45˚ turn and 'pay' for two more 45˚ turns (5 cm left), the remaining Speed can be used to move at least 5 cm, which will be moving as directly as possible towards the enemy unit. For me, this is the equivalent of having to detour around impassible terrain, but you're still taking the shortest route.

If you turn the WE to face directly at the enemy unit by making three and a bit turns, there is no movement left over to actually move.

[IJW-Wartrader]

And then naturally the debate started as to whether in fact the limits for 'Assault moves' only apply to units that are actually on 'Assault orders', and therefore not to WEs which don't use orders.

P.S. The rules for 'Assault moves' have to apply to all units. Because those rules include ignoring Snap-fire. Take away the 'Assault move' rules and it's impossible for WEs to reach base contact with enemy units if you're not using WE Orders... 😜

[digi-brain]

I'm probably not explaining myself very well, partly because I can't remember the exact situations. But in your diagrammatic example, you're saying that a turn does not count as a move, even though it consumes movement... in this case, your example reflects my second postulate:

If a turn does not count as a move, then surely you'd still have to prioritise turning to face the enemy first, it's just that you'd still also have to actually move the model 5 cm.

But the implications are different if a turn does count as a move, per my first postulate:

If a turn does indeed counts as a move, then you can use up 5 cm by turning more than 45 degrees, to face the enemy more directly. So, if a free 45 degree turn wouldn't point the WE directly towards an enemy unit, then wouldn't you have to turn more towards the enemy and use the move that way rather than conveniently choose to move "not directly towards an enemy unit"...?

So then your diagram should show an addition part of a turn to face the enemy directly, rather than a 5 cm move that is not directly towards the enemy.

So, which is it? Is a turn a 'move', or not?

P.S. The rules for 'Assault moves' have to apply to all units. Because those rules include ignoring Snap-fire. Take away the 'Assault move' rules and it's impossible for WEs to reach base contact with enemy units if you're not using WE Orders... 😜

I'm not saying that we thought no aspect of the Assault moves could apply (otherwise how would you charge, aside from anything else). I'm saying that we failed to reconcile the movement limitations on the assault moves with the limitations on war engine turning, and so we gave up on the former just so we could get the hell on with our game.