No, Not really.

you can safely walk right over the top of your own infantry in all those examples. they could always do that
they just cant do it if there is nowhere to stand when they get there.

and in most instances they're advancing to provide their armour more than firepower benefits to the squishier fellows in their care, so these war engines are crushing their own troops in an effort to... protect their own troops?

and you're not locking them in. you can still move the engines through friendly infantry at no penalty so long as you have somewhere to put it once you're done you're just not getting extra bonuses if your infantrymen where in combat (which makes no sense at all) and my wording would suggest you can still move enemy units so long as you dont break combats, so you can bend them out of the way, so they'd hardly be pinned in all the time, just when the enemy has outmaneuvered or outpositioned you. which should be the case.

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

What if it's the presence of enemy troops (locked in CC with friendlies) that has taken up the real estate for their feet.



I don't think that's necessarily the case -- vis. the Ork Gargant amidst its bhoys. The problem is that most of this debate is writing barging rules from the bottom up -- to make the Gorgon work -- rather than from the top down -- to make War Engines work. Granted, arguably, Matt's use of Gorgons is highlighting a potential WE abuse, or making WE more unbalanced... but I'm not sure the balance issues are entirely clear -- especially because Matt's tactics are predicated on combined arms using both WEs and Infantry. From my point of view, if you can find potent combinations like this, more power to you.



This may be so, but really here we're down to issues of tactics -- some significant portion of the imbalance came from the idea that Matt surprised his opponents with his use of Gorgons, won himself a reputation for invincibility, and the campaign ended before his opponents got over complaining to sit down and take apart his tactics and counter-tactics. My interpretation of the initial issue is that we're dealing with evolving tactical problems -- to borrow from Kubler Ross sense, we're seeing a snapshot of tactics in the 2nd stage of defeat (denial, anger, acceptance, innovation).

It may be that there are problems with the barging rules, much as there may be problems with, say, clipping... but I'd argue for letting these 'stages of defeat' play out through to the (counter-)innovation stage on a larger scale before patching up the rules. (or even nerfing the Gorgon).

I disagree that it is a bottom up way of seeing things; the real question is : what happen when WE try to barge enemy units that are in CC with a friendly unit other than the WE ? The question is certainly crucial in the case of Gorgon/Infantry formation, but it is legitimate nonetheless and not very clear.

Possible answers could be :

- barge the enemy unit out of BtB/CC (seems VERY open to abuse)
- barge the enemy unit out of the way, but keep the (friendly) unit it was engaged with in BtB contact with it (imply you displace your own units by barging them)
- disallow such moves.

I personally tend to think that such a thing as hand to hand or very close range combat cannot be expected to be displaced by a WE running over it. It would just all get squished.
So a WE shouldn't be allowed to barge units that are engaged in BtB with another unit.

This is the same logic that doesn't allow shooting units in base contact in a lot of game systems. However, we don't limit that because the the positions of units and the order of movement in the rules is approximate, not literal. A formation on OW can shoot at the enemy that move into base contact because even though the method in the rules is " shoot after movement" the actual shooting occurs simultaneous to movement.

That same consideration applies to countercharges. Even though charge/countercharge is IGOUGO in the rules, in the reality of the game world all that assault movement and fire is happening at the same time.

The military doctrine of having heavy units spearhead is not a new thing. The WE "barging" the enemy over its own units could just as easily represent the WE moving aggressively to intercept the enemy as they close or just moving to protect the infantry before the enemy get in the assault positions on the board.

I'd be in favour of friendly displacement barging, i.e:



purely to remove the need to micromanage every unit placement to a ridiculous degree, or bring in an incentive to metagame War Engine bases down to as small as possible.

One of my favourite things about Epic has been it's loose restrictions on basing, but rulings like this incentivise small-as-possible bases; in this case to maximise the possibility of squeezing between infantry stands.

Another way to look at it I suppose, is that 10 by 40 mm infantry base isn't supposed to represent exactly where the infantry are during the turn, it's more the average of where they are within their Zone of Control. So, the fact that an infantry stand would be 5mm overlapping a War Engine after it's moved shouldn't prevent said War Engine moving.

MikeT - I thought exactly like you before I faced the Krieg formations of 20 stands infantry/2 Gorgons.
After that, I will not be allowing barging to displace friendly infantry. Anyone who has actually faced this situation and seen that what it really does is just give 20 stands of Guardsmen a 4+ reinforced armour save, knows that it's not what the rules intend. The FAQ states that Barging only allows the War Engine to move enemy units. If we simply follow that rule the game works well and fairly.
Anything else is not according to the FAQ and is no balanced.
Our local Krieg player has already adapted to this and come up with some interesting formations so as not to run over his own troops and still be competetive in Engamements.

_________________
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 is only 3 saves and about +2 on resolution (once you count defensive cover saves the infantry would have on the defense).


What effect has this had if they can get the majority of the advantages anyway?

I just worry that you're letting your concerns about one specific application of this (Gorgons in krieg infantry formations), lead to adversely effecting a number of other, more general situations. Titans with infantry in front of them is one obvious example, what with their large bases, and I think most tyranid lists allow War Engine size gribblies to be taken in mixed Inf/AV formations, which would obviously be adversely effected by this.

Not to mention the fact that intermingling titans and infantry formations ought to be a reasonable combined arms tactic.

That's fine. But If I make the battlefield choice to screen my War Engine with infantry, then I can't suddenly expect my Titan to suddenly take to the front when the enemy engages the formation. That's having my cake and eating it to.

It should be a hard choice, with consequences of doing so.

I suppose. But the problem is that the enemy could use friendly supporting infantry to prevent a CC optimized titan from getting into CC. This despite the fact that charges and countercharges are intended to simulate simultaneous efforts by both sides to close with the enemy.

And so your Great Gargant refrains from mixing it up with the enemy to avoid stepping on a bunch of grotz and boys.

What exactly are we simulating with this kind of CC-lockdown?

They can do that by engaging from 11cms + so if it's screened or not is not really relevant. It's about selecting the best way to engage and given target.

We are not stopping the gargant moving to engage on favoured terms, its to stop it being an ablative shield for an infantry formation we ELECTED to put between it and the enemy.

He will be rolling less dice.
These monster formations are close to breaking the game mechanics (note I said close).
Once you factor in 20 attacks at 5+ (whether in CC or FF) and another 6 at 6+, then work out that at least 3 (often the first 6) hits that the formation takes are at 4+ reinforced armour, this attrition formation suddenly wins engagements whilst taking no casualties. If friendly barging is allowed there is nothing that the enemy can do about this.

Friendly barging is just not on. It does not reward good tactics on either side (it simply guarantees the infantry an armour save that they should not automatically get).



Carlos wrote this earlier in the thread:

_________________
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.

You're talking about an engagement above, but we're discussing friendly barging. If a Gorgon mounted Krieg infantry company engages, it'll generate roughly 8 hits, with the gorgons naturally taking the first 6 hits on 4+ reinforced,what with their higher base move and the controlling player being able to arrange everything how he likes; reasonable, but hardly broken.

If the Krieg company is instead engaged, then it's very size would work against it and would often be unable to get all it's stands into the engagement, even with counter charge.

You need to remove your dislike of this specific formation from your consideration of a more general rule.



I'd counter with the argument that you're inflating the probable effects of this massively and it sounds like more of a problem with cheap 4+RA saves for infantry than an esoteric rules ambiguity that needs clearing up.

Once you factor all that in, you realise you engaged the centre of a 425pt engagement-biased formation, allowing them to get all their attacks.

Most formations will, and should, lose an engagement under those terms, and badly.

Engage-clip it, degrade it at range, put a bm on it and avoid it, hit it with arty... do anything but engage the centre of an un-damaged low-SR Engagement specialist formation (Which seems to be what I'm seeing from the photos).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter