As I stated, it is an initial reaction, not a design for an FAQ.
I am not proposing anything at this stage.

I wouldn't know how the rest of Australia plays this. I live in Perth with about 20 local players. The rest of the country is as big as the US and I've only played 6 games with non western Australians.

Ha, only 1 hit per DC...
So that's the first 6 hits on the formation of Krieg infantry that have 4+ reinforced armour!

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

It's certainly possible, though I generally prefer 8 Centaurs over it myself.

Wandering OT now but don't you dare remove Warhounds from the list, I would be seriously pissed!

Warhounds are very iconic allies of Krieg and often fight with them e.g. during the Vraks campaign the Krieg had 22 titans as allies, 12 of which were Warhounds. On Armageddon Krieg fought alongside titans too. If they are proving too good in the list do something like bumping up the cost of a singleton Warhound to 300 say, please don't remove them entirely!

D6 dead inside (hopefully as well as immobilised not instead of - Gorgons got immobilised a few times in the Vraks background) definitely sounds like a good idea for worsening the critical. A cost boost would be good for them too and would be the simplest and most sensible way to address them.

As far as the Krieg (and other races) is concerned, those 6x hits can easily swing the assault resolution in their favour. WE transports actually make this worse because only the hits that actually damage the WE count in the resolution; where the WE is already damaged, any surplus hits are ignored. In the case of the Krieg, this means that up to 4 hits are *ignored* in the assault resolution! It is this point that needs consideration IMO

Disembarking should be the subject of a FAQ IMO. I suggest the following wording for consideration:-


As to the Gorgons, they definitely need some kind of nerf. Revising the critical is very sensible. I like the D6 dead inside, and IMO it should also include the more usual D6 for all units within 5cm, hitting on a 6. The cost hike may also be appropriate, though I am less sure of this.

I understand the desire to limit the effect that this has on the game, exemplified to an extreme by gorgons, but clearly such an interpretation of dismounting would affect many other armies. I would be particularly concerned about Eldar, this would be a reasonably serious nerf for them. Mech inf too, or anything with poor armour.

I think it would be better to address the gorgon issue by doing exactly that - address gorgons. I don't feel like it's totally broken for all hard transports or even just WE ones. In general when assaulting things loaded up into transports I accept that I either need to score enough hits to get past their armour, or trap them inside. For this reason I tend to only do it when the odds are stacked in my favour, e.g. have managed to kill enough of them through shooting first.

I find this is fine by and large, but not for gorgons. In my one game vs Krieg I had exactly the same impression as Onyx: "how the hell am I going to kill one formation, let alone 3?" and this was with an Eldar army with plenty of MW and fantastic assault options. The problem is that the standard counters (catch them inside with shooting) take a lot of doing, and being WE, you don't get any reward from doing "some" damage to them - you need to utterly destroy them. Given the way hit allocation works, the chance of this happening turns out to be pretty small.

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

My opinion is that requiring infantry to dismount in front of their transports is both too large a change for the FAQ (it goes against what is commonly played almost everywhere as far as I know), and also against the spirit of the rules - infantry use their vehicles for cover all the time (as represented by the -1 modifier for being in b2b), and to me it's perfectly fine that they do it in FF too - especially when they come under attack!

The problem is Krieg, not the rule in general. I brought it up because the rule as written, in one of two possible interpretations (a dismount is a move vs a dismount is a placement), goes against the common practice. If we want to tackle Gorgons specifically it's a matter for the Krieg list. Don't drag mounted Guardians, Orcs and SL Guardsmen down with them. Choosing what to engage is powerful, I'd rather prefer that the active formation can't dictate everything (even if that's my instinct when I actually play the game!)



I think these two together do a fine job of outlining how to practically apply counter charging in a real game. "shortest possible path" is a much clearer rule than "directly towards", unless you want to create a congestion of counter charging units. "Fully engaged" also creates a clear requirement for what units should be contacted and which can be kept out of CC.

For me we now only need to decide what is the actual spirit of War Engines "counter barging" - should they move in the shortest possible path (my view) and move enemy units about, or should they attempt to disturb as few enemy units as possible (Rug's view)?

Sorry Ginger but I have to say I really wouldn't like to see that FAQ adopted, and if it were I'd rescind it for any events I was judging.

I do believe the Kreig list is a little OP, but the problem really isn't the gorgons. They kinda define the list so doing things to make them worse via rules isn't the way to go IMO.

As others have said, removing single warhonunds, or removing them entirely and a point tweak here and there would be my choice to achieve the changes I think are needed.

_________________
@MephistonAG for all sorts of twitter madness

Removing Warhounds is a good thing for the Krieg list.
Also any critical would be better than the silly immobile thing we have now for Gorgons.
Of course, we really are getting off topic now...

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Rug should probably fork it over to the IG forum!

So counter charge.

1) Do we count infantry dismounting as being "placed" and thus do not have to be closer to the enemy than their transport?

2) Should War Engines obey "shortest path" when counter barging, or should they try for a "path of least disturbance"?

Np Meph, Ulrik and Kyrt.

So, if the issue is that WE transport (Gorgons) are able to exploit 'free' disembarking better than other transport, is this the root of the problem, or is there something else?

As to Warhounds, I have long campaigned for a restriction of 0-1 Warhounds per army. Other Warhounds would be bought as pairs.

The root of the issue is either the inherent survivability of Gorgons, or their cost for me.

I'd hate to see rules clarifications/changes to fix the interaction between 2 units in 1 formation in 1 list. That way lies madness me thinks!

_________________
@MephistonAG for all sorts of twitter madness

So how do people play the counter charge restrictions in combination with the "entering ZoC" restrictions? Like I outlined in this post, what do you do when counter-charging towards the closest enemy (which does not have a ZoC any more because it is in contact with 1 unit), and then enter the ZoC of a second unit?

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

Personally I've probably played it like a charge so they bypass the first now suppressed ZoC and go to the next nearest. In truth it's normally just happened once you know which way you have to counter charge without micro measurement.

_________________
@MephistonAG for all sorts of twitter madness

Erk, I think requiring counter charging unit B to first head for target unit 1 (currently b2b with counter charging unit A) and then head towards target unit 2 is going to be fiddly and gamey. If 2 is directly behind 1 (both on a 40x12mm strip base) I can easily imagine a situation where B runs towards unit 1 and then stops when it hits 2's ZoC, makes a 90 degree turn and then fails to get around unit 1.

Either 2 units have to counter charge the closest enemy unit, ignoring ZoCs, or counter charging units will ignore a unit that has lost its ZoC.

Well the problem is the rules clearly say that you must countercharge towards the closest enemy, and the faq says that this is only not true when there are TWO units in base contact.

To be honest I think in my games I tend to just move them without thinking about it, moving towards the closest unit who still has a zoc, but it's not what the faq says.

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