Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Possible exploitation of the Intermingled Rule?
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1413		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Clockwerks [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:56 am ]
Post subject:  Possible exploitation of the Intermingled Rule?
Hi Guys,

Weird thing happened with me and my friend the other day and I wanted to see what the official ruling was on this sort of thing:

I had several formations more or less int he middle of hte board, safely in terrain, occupying around a foot and a half line. There were 4 formations total, the bulk of my troops.

I also had (purely as a result of movement) a Ranger formation (who have the Scout ability) that had been within 5cm of every single formation in my core.

My opponent declaired an Engage, assault 2 rangers on the far left side so that they were the only 2 that get into HtH or firefight but declaired the other 4 formations as 'intermingled' with the ranger formation. I lost horribly as it was like 15 units to my 2 rangers. As far as we could tell it meant that all those other 4 formations (the bulk of my army) would ahve broken as well given that they were technically all apart of the same combat.

Is this true? Can this be? It would mean that because of my scout ability and the two lone units on the far left hand side left my -entire- army open to a complete route because my opponent had killed 2 rangers. We both agreed that this seemed like a gross exploitation but since we couldn't find any evidence to the contrary played it that way anyways.

Did we miss something? Because that just seems wrong that someone could potentially break an entire army because of the happenstance placement of 2 scout rangers on the far end of a formation that is within 5cm of the rest of the army... Thoughts? Clarifications?
Author:  Markconz [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:07 am ]
Post subject:  Possible exploitation of the Intermingled Rule?
What is this intermingled rule? I don't know anything about it!

The way I read the rules you can engage as many enemy formations as you like - but all those formations have to have at least one of their units within 15cm of one of your engaging units. That doesn't soudn like the situation you are describing.
Author:  code_ronin [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:12 am ]
Post subject:  Possible exploitation of the Intermingled Rule?
Intermingled Formations is Special Rule 1.12.10 - page 26, I think - and according to my read, you were right in that all formations within 5 cm of any of the Ranger units would have been eligible to be sucked in. "For purposes of the assault, the intermingled formation is treated as being a single formation."

There are several things to remember here, though.

1. All defending units in the assault now get to counter-charge. If you can place more units within 15 cm of the attackers, they get to throw in with the Firefight dice.

2. If your core army was sucked into assault, you probably:
 a. Outnumbered them (+1), and
 b. Outnumbered the by more than 2:1 (+1).
So you stand a good chance of winning the combat resolution.

3. This is a rare result that requires a lot of the right elements to come into play in order for it to happen (i.e. forces together but not too much, Scouts moving through at that moment, Scouts spread out, etc. Also, you did it when there was an enemy formation within engagement range of your final position (unless you had further bad luck of him moving after you last turn and before you the next turn). That just should not happen that frequently.

I don't think it is an abuse. Just bad timing.

But, hey, now you both have a wargame story to tell!

Dale
Author:  Markconz [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:37 am ]
Post subject:  Possible exploitation of the Intermingled Rule?
Quote (Hena @ 18 Jan. 2006 (04:12))
To quote rulebook.

Two formations are intermingled if they have any units within 5cm of each other. If there are two or more formations within 5cm of the target formation, then the attacker can choose to include one or more of them as the target, he does not though have to include any of them.


So was all you units within 5cm fom the scouts? If was then you used rules correctly. One major disadvantage in using a wide formation is something like this. I don't know if the rules review will bring some help to attacking only small part of the formation, which might have helped in this.

OMG our group has been playing this wrong for ages (too used to Epic40k)!! We just assumed you could target any formations within 15cm of the charge (and we never had an issue using the rule like this!) Admittedly it wouldn't have changed most assaults we have fought.

I would like to see a clarification added to the intermingling rule at the end of the first section (something like the following):

'To be a valid target under this rule, a formation must still have at least one of its units within 15cm of a unit from the engaging formation.'

That should do away with the problematic situation described by Clockwerks.
Author:  Tiny-Tim [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Possible exploitation of the Intermingled Rule?
Your interpretation of the rule is correct and it can create some very harsh results.

However I find this only happens once with an opponent and they soon change their placement of models to compensate for this.

I have also found that long lines of scouts near any other formation is often a bad idea.

Tim
Author:  nealhunt [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Possible exploitation of the Intermingled Rule?
Is this true? Can this be? It would mean that because of my scout ability and the two lone units on the far left hand side left my -entire- army open to a complete route because my opponent had killed 2 rangers. We both agreed that this seemed like a gross exploitation but since we couldn't find any evidence to the contrary played it that way anyways.


Yep.  You did it right and it is brutal.  As Tiny Tim said, it generally only takes one time to teach this lesson.

The FAQ's also state that the "intermingling distance" for scouts is 10cm, which means that a poorly placed scout formation can truly tank an entire army.  Personally, I think this is a heinously bad ruling, but nonetheless for the time being it stands.

The group I play with is absolutely fastidious about not being intermingled.  We used to not only measure multiple times, but tell the other player explicitly that the intent was that the formations were not to be intermingled, just in case something was bumped accidentally.  Now, we did it that way so long that we all take it for granted that unless it is blatantly too close, the formations are not to be intermingled.
Author:  Markconz [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Possible exploitation of the Intermingled Rule?
I would like to see this intermingling rule situation clarified to stop such abuse as soon as possible - this sort of thing is exactly what makes new players go 'yuk what a dumb game', and rightly so.

Stringing a skirmish screen of scouts out in front of your army should not be penalised as a tactic due to the unfortunate and unintended consequences of a poorly written rule.

I'm taking this to the SG site - does anyone have any further comments before I do so?
Author:  code_ronin [ Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Possible exploitation of the Intermingled Rule?
Quote (Markconz @ 18 Jan. 2006 (21:02))
Stringing a skirmish screen of scouts out in front of your army should not be penalised as a tactic due to the unfortunate and unintended consequences of a poorly written rule.

Not that I agree or disagree with gutting the rule, but remember the context here. The player did not string "a skirmish screen of scouts out in front of [his] army", but instead got caught while moving either forward or backward (which, is not clear) through his lines with an enemy within engagement range. That is two very different things. One is a good move and the other is a bad move, which I am fairly certain he won't get caught doing again.  :laugh:

I'm not sure what you think is poorly written about the rule either.

Dale
Author:  Markconz [ Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:10 am ]
Post subject:  Possible exploitation of the Intermingled Rule?
Quote (code_ronin @ 18 Jan. 2006 (20:38))
Quote (Markconz @ 18 Jan. 2006 (21:02))
Stringing a skirmish screen of scouts out in front of your army should not be penalised as a tactic due to the unfortunate and unintended consequences of a poorly written rule.

Not that I agree or disagree with gutting the rule, but remember the context here. The player did not string "a skirmish screen of scouts out in front of [his] army", but instead got caught while moving either forward or backward (which, is not clear) through his lines with an enemy within engagement range. That is two very different things. One is a good move and the other is a bad move, which I am fairly certain he won't get caught doing again. ?:laugh:

I'm not sure what you think is poorly written about the rule either.

Dale

Why should a few scouts retreating from enemy potentially over a kilometre away (30cm) cause an army to rout without any of the rest of the army even coming under fire?

This situation is nonsensical IMO. Skirmish screens are designed to operate just in front of their own troops and fall back through them without causing disruption. From ancient Psiloi, Napoleonic skirmish screens, to WW2 pickets, I can't think of anything that justifies what can happen under the epic rules.

I regard the rule as poorly written precisely because it permits this situation to happen.
Author:  code_ronin [ Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:11 am ]
Post subject:  Possible exploitation of the Intermingled Rule?
How things are designed to operate (i.e. the regulations manual) and how things happen in real life are two different things. You think that in the entire history of man's warfare a skirmish screen retreating through the main body and which got caught by assault troops never caused a panic and pulled down the rest of the army?

Just curious, but how would you recommend the rule be correctly worded? In other words, what do you think the proper solution is, so that it no longer "permits this situation to happens"?

I agree the result is not common, but neither are the circumstances under which it is triggered. Are you saying that you don't like the Intermingled Formations rule at all? Or that Scouts should not somehow be exempted?

Inquiring minds would like to know.
Author:  Markconz [ Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:36 am ]
Post subject:  Possible exploitation of the Intermingled Rule?
To requote my solution from earlier in the thread:

I would like to see a clarification added to the intermingling rule at the end of the first section (something like the following):

'To be a valid target under this rule, a formation must still have at least one of its units within 15cm of a unit from the engaging formation.'

Ie you actually have to be assaulting a formation (within 15cm of it) to break it, regardless of the intermingling rule.
Author:  fuseboy [ Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:56 am ]
Post subject:  Possible exploitation of the Intermingled Rule?
Markconz' suggestion looks interesting, although the wording and timing needs to be thought through carefully.

One way to do it would be:
1. Declare target formation and formations that are possibly intermingled.
2. Attacker moves.
3. Possibly intermingled formations which are within 15cm of an attacking unit are now definitley intermingled.
4. Defender counter-charges with formations involved in the assault.

It would stop clipping attacks taking out multiple formations, which I think is reasonable.
Author:  phindar [ Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Possible exploitation of the Intermingled Rule?
Quote (Markconz @ 18 Jan. 2006 (21:02))
I would like to see this intermingling rule situation clarified to stop such abuse as soon as possible - this sort of thing is exactly what makes new players go 'yuk what a dumb game', and rightly so.

Stringing a skirmish screen of scouts out in front of your army should not be penalised as a tactic due to the unfortunate and unintended consequences of a poorly written rule.

I'm taking this to the SG site - does anyone have any further comments before I do so?

This is just my humble oppinion. ?But I disagree.

Intermingle has its advantages and disadvantages.

People use scouts to prevent assaults to "other formations"
People use scouts to avoid TELEPORT moves close to ones battlelines
People bunches formations together to avoid juicy targets from being assaulted.
And there are many other ways to have "really close together" formations help each other like firefighting and so on.

Now intermingle gives the other end, an advantage (or disadvantage, sometimes) when assaulting.

Intermingled formations are vulnerable to barrage.
Intermingled formations are vulnerable to clipping :evil:

BUT

They are strong firefighters
They usually outnumber the enemy hence being resilient to ASSAULTS
They can concentrate fire and elliminate threats preventing assaults.

If you are (please help me with a word so that I don't say "dumb") inexperienced ?:/ ?enough to allow a formation to assualt your 3+ intermingled formations, ?then you need to redefine your tactics.

I don't think the rule is broken. ?I think it was bad placement. ?But again it is just IMHO
Author:  nealhunt [ Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Possible exploitation of the Intermingled Rule?
Ie you actually have to be assaulting a formation (within 15cm of it) to break it, regardless of the intermingling rule.


I don't think this is necessary.

I think the real problem is that the scout intermingling distance was boosted to 10cm to "solve" a rare effect that potentially prevented CC assaults which, imho, wasn't problematic even in its most extreme theoretical application.  This forces a screening formation to be too far extended to be an effective screen.  They are too easy to simply engage because they are so far outside of 15cm support range.

It also doesn't help that people don't tend to realize how the intermingling rules work until they get slammed.  But as noted, once it happens, it rarely happens again.

While there might not be nearly as many historical instances of pickets causing panic when they retreat, there are dozens of famous examples where a battle line was outflanked and routing spread down the line as the flank crumbled.  If you require 15cm from all intermingled formations, it will clearly stop such things from happening.  I think that would be a bad thing.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/