Uh-huh. Even if that enemy is unarmed or unable to hurt you or you it....

And from my point of view, not to mention the fact that an engagement is touted as a "swirling melee", it makes no sense to counter charge away from the current enemy trying to smash you with his power fists in the swirling melee....

Hey, it's the current rule and you're happy to play it that way. I don't have to like it hence my statement why it's my least favourite rule.

I believe this is one of those "in game" situations where you have to think like your one of the models on the table rather than a general with a God like view over the table to understand.

As a player with a God like view, you can see it's not a good idea to counter charge certain models away from the attacking formation, in some situations it can be really bad especially if you cannot get part of your formation to lend their fire into the fray.

As a model without the God like view, you would know your formation is under heavy attack and then your told by your own troops to get stuck into 'em. So in the heat of battle you go for the enemy you can see and which at the time would seem the biggest threat, the nearest.

I think the rule represents the real fog of war well, but I know it's not to everyones liking.

I agree with Dobbsy. The "closest enemy unit" you have to "move directly towards" sounds like a typo that should really have read the "closest enemy unit from the assaulting formation(s)".

But there you have it.

It's not a typo. It's an intentional rule that represents the fog of war, as indicated above.

When your trooper's commander shouts "Counter Charge!!!" then his troops counter charge the enemy they can see, not the enemy they can't see. I'm sure JJ even covered this in discussion or FAQ at some point.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

It represents it terribly then, as you're more likely to follow your own troops to the fight than run off and leave them.
Assaults are often won by the weight of the press and keeping the momentum going. Taking troops out of that equation means you're likely to fail.


Pretty sure any bayonet charge in history didn't counter charge into a random artillery piece coz it's all they could see... but oh well. Bad rules can appear regardless of who writes them. <shrug>

My "gamey" comment stems from the fact that a clever opponent can draw your forces away from the real fight just because the rules allow it.

As a god's-eye-view general, sure.

But as a trooper on the ground, who do you counter-charge when the call goes up:

- The enemy half a mile away.
- The enemy 100 metres away.

The answer is rather obvious, really.


Yes, the rules are designed to give a player who manoevers his forces with intelligence an advantage, by manipulating the fog of war he can pin his enemies in place.

"gamey" happens where rules mechanics can be exploited to achieve unfair, or heinously unrealistic things. This isn't one of those situations, IMHO.


The Charge of the Light Brigade is a rather excellent example of fog of war causing a formation to charge entirely the wrong target, as they didn't have the same vantage point as their army's general.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Yes, but you'll remember they all charged the same target leaving the enemy flanking forces untouched and they were closer

The GW FAQ says:

"The intent of the rule is that if you enter a ZOC, then you must attempt to move into base contact with the nearest enemy unit whose ZOC you have entered. If you start a move in a ZOC, you can either move into contact with the closest enemy unit, or exit the ZOC by the shortest possible route."
This is in specific reference to the "make charge move" section of the rules, and since counter charges follow the normal charge move rules this suggests to me that starting in ZoC is treated differently to entering ZoC, in that you have the option of leaving the ZoC instead of trying to get into base contact. If you then have the move remaining, you might feasibly use it to go anywhere you like, on the proviso that if you then enter ZoC you try to get into base contact.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Ack, I think another FAQ is needed then if "starting in ZoC" is different from "entering ZoC". I would think if you start in a unit's ZoC then that unit's ZoC "has been entered". Out of curiosity, was this one written to keep Scouts from screening a formation while behind it?

It also doesn't seem very consistent with the rest of the rules. If I ZoC an enemy formation it should either have to engage the ZoCer or move out of its ZoC on the next activation. Under this FAQ the enemy formation can engage another formation so long as its closer than the ZoCer. That doesn't seem right.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Yes, I think this is part of the no screening from behind.

I can see it making sense there but the language could be cleaned up so it doesn't seem contradictory to the rest of the rules. Something like "you move towards the closest enemy who's ZoC you are in/have entered/whatever, but if you contact another enemy during that move you engage them" would work.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

There is a separate FAQ for scouts screening from behind, basically saying you can charge the front unit:



On the subject of charging "the closest unit", I don't think it is inconsistent with the rest of the rules at all to allow units to leave the ZoC before they charge or counter charge. Sure it can create some odd situations (leaving ZoC to engage a unit that is further away), but it also prevents some equally odd situations (being unable to leave scout ZoC in order to engage a different unit that is actually closer).

On balance I think it is fine to leave ZoC, and to be honest using ZoC to keep units out of an engagement is a fairly cheesy tactic (just as cheesy as screening from behind, of which the FAQ takes a dim view).

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

But this rule isn't trying to represent a bayonet charge or a charge of any kind.
The rule that tries to represent that situation is the Engage action, which doesn't allow your troops to go off and attack random units, in fact it severely limits your troops to attacking one force/one intermingled force only (the target formation).

The "counter Charge" rule represents the force being attacked trying to retaliate and possibly getting into better positions to repel the assault. There are countless situations through history where "feint attacks" are used to draw off defenders from the real attack or "feint retreats" to draw defenders into an ambush.
This is what "counter charge the closest enemy unit" represents very well IMO (forces reacting to what they can see not the overall picture of the battle or Fog of War).

Feint attacks and retreats have been a valid military tactic at least since the Battle of Hydaspes and probably before that.



Does that then mean all the great military leaders through out history must be considered to be gamey if they've managed to draw enemy forces away from the main fight instead of great tacticians or strategists.

As is made clear in the Rules and backed up in the FAQ's a "counter charge" is not an activation. It is a special move allowed as part of the assault action.

Which counter charge is part of. So your troops should pile into the swirling melee not the random troopy standing off to the side.

Exactly, and troops should go with their own to defend.

Sure there is. But these are specific attacks not random troops standing off yonder. Don't defending forces get to assess the situation? This is my biggest beef - there's not even a test to work it out.

"Sorry lads I think the random artillery gun should be a priority target even though there's a screaming horde charging our front..."

The fact you have no say in it is just a weak representation, not a good one. Particularly when the rules go on to say that an engagement is a swirling melee and are supposed to play out that way. It's a double standard.

I could understand the wording if the closest enemy unit was about to take part in the engagement as a support fire unit, but it doesn't.

Sure you can argue god's eye etc but then that's part of a bunch of situations in game so it's consistent - why remove that element when other situations don't?


No worries, I just heartily disagree with you.

[/quote]
No but then they weren't playing with an ambiguously written rule.