PDA

View Full Version : Rules Clarifications For all Rules Lawers out there ...



Akuma
17-04-2008, 13:13
This is the link leading to rules clarifications used in my country - would you like to please take a minute and read throught the few pages of them and give your verdict about the "validity" of them ( thay are in english version also ) :)

Then after you read throught them post your score - from 1 to 10 - one beeing very very poor and unbalancing - whearas 10 beeing extreamly great and game stabilising :)

I await your judgment humbly :)

Link (http://strony.aster.pl/barbaros/)

explorator
17-04-2008, 15:17
Intersting take on Storm of Chaos, and by interesting take I mean...odd. The 6th ed./7th ed. distiction seems a strange place to draw the line. On a positive note, I believe many counties are banning the Storm of Chaos book completely. These folks are allowing some SoC armies at least.

Rules for Allies are always clumsy; these will work as well as others I have seen. Tournies with Allies need more time to finish each game.

Terrain=OK, watch out for lava pits.

Movement. hmmmm.
c)This is wrong. BRB pg. 62 under Moving Chariots "simply measure the distance and move it. There is no need to turn or wheel" is definitive. Monsters follow the same rule.
e)This is wrong. BRB pg. 73 a character "is unable to join and leave the same unit in the same turn."
f)This does not make sense.

Charges
i)The infamous 'slide'.

Shooting
b)four, not for.... "there is no "look out sir" for a regiment which includes four regular troopers...

Bases
b)Bases for war machines are required? Bad idea. Better make sure this is well known. Many, many war machines do not come with bases.

Miscellaneous
a)This is a bad idea. No measurements should even be taken unless required. Perhaps the wording is not clear in english. "Measuring LOS?" Measuring means 'tape-measure' to me.
g)Characters are never Monsters? What about Galrauch? He is not a monster?:wtf: I see alot of potential problems here.
i)Giving all BSB's the ability to use great weapons is a huge leap, that goes against most of the rules in the armybooks.

All the Army specific stuff is too much for me.

I am glad this is labeled "Rules Interpretations" and not "Rules Clarifications" The Poles have made some decent chioces here, but have also muddied the waters in many cases.

As far as 'balance' goes, it is hard to say. Country specific Tourny Rules that change the rules in the BRB are dangerous. I do not think most of these 'interpretations' are game breaking, but they do change some significant rules.

Mercules
17-04-2008, 16:17
Movement. hmmmm.
c)This is wrong. BRB pg. 62 under Moving Chariots "simply measure the distance and move it. There is no need to turn or wheel" is definitive. Monsters follow the same rule.
e)This is wrong. BRB pg. 73 a character "is unable to join and leave the same unit in the same turn."
f)This does not make sense.

c) Agreed... it's wrong because of how Chariots/Monsters move.
e) I believe he is referring to a unit that was previously joined by a character and that character being outside the 8" march block range still being able to leave said unit and march.
f) Considering Flying Characters can not join units ever, yeah.



i)Giving all BSB's the ability to use great weapons is a huge leap, that goes against most of the rules in the armybooks.

Most... but not all. It looks like in 7th edition BSBs are now being allowed to use both hands for certain things. This is a bit scary considering by this "ruling" an OK Bruiser BSB could wield Seigebreaker.

Some of these are nice, but others could use some tweeking.

SuperBeast
17-04-2008, 16:38
1)a) Random movement isn't affected by terrain unless specified or the terrain piece in question is impassable.

1)e) The character may not march out of the unit; he is part of the unit until he moves, hence he is march blocked.

1)f) doesn't make sense; characters on flying mounts cannot join units. If the character itself is capable of flight, this is irrelevant as long as he is with the unit.

2)c) units may only make 1 charge reaction regardless of the number of charges being made. If the charge is a result of random movement, then you may change the reaction.

3)a) is a little problematic; using the example of the cursed book - it only affects the vampire carrying it anyway, so if he's dead it has no further effect. If the item/rule says something like 'for one round' then the death of the character has no effect, as the item's effect is already in play until the end of that round.

3)b)Is already part of the challenge rules.

5)a) If a unit declares the 'flee' reaction against multiple chargers, it flees from the first declared charge, not the highest US one.

5)b) is unneccessary as charge facing is already well handled within the rules.

5)c) not sure what this means? Units ALWAYS flee in their original formation, facing in the direction of flee with the centre of the unit on the line of charge.

6)b) champions still count as R&F models when determining the 'look out sir' threshold, e.g. 5 R&F inc. champion means 'look out sir' can be tested for.

12)j) bear in mind the warmachine needs to still be on the board, and not 'spiked' in CC.

12)k) This can only be enforced on items that specify 'lance' in their rules description, and is still a sore point. If the item is called 'Lance of killing' or whatever, but does not specify that it is a mundane lance in the rules, then it can be used on foot.

Chaos 4)f) Bad form. Unless an item is always in effect, it is down to the owning player to decide when it is used. You cannot decide to use it for him.

Dwarfs d) Some items specify 'ranged attacks' instead of shooting. These DO apply against the anvil's damage regardless of interpretation. With regard to 'shooting' ward saves, I can't say for sure without reading the anvil rules.

Dwarfs i) incorrect. The shield is a 'mount' for a US1 character, and so he can be affected by killing blow.

EvC
17-04-2008, 16:39
Very good FAQ. Some comments, many are just formatting errors (Just goes to show how good the main work is that I don't have a huge list of complaints ;) ). As Merucles and Superbeast demonstrate, precise argument over rules is silly, as people are all too willing to comment on issues that they don't fully understand.

2) Tactical charges on warmachines, nice. Agree that flyers can fly alongside their troops (Merucles is wrong). I think the sliding issue should be "by mutual consent".
3) a) Update the example, Cursed Book is different now.
6 b) You have a typo, for = four.
12 k) is a good ruling. See the silly long thread in our rules forum :)
9) letter formatting messed up
10) Salamanders ranking up? Flaming attacks? Come on... that's what people care about :)

Mercules
17-04-2008, 16:43
Agree that flyers can fly alongside their troops (Merucles is wrong).

I was... it's Characters on Flying Mounts that can't join units. Hmmmm... So how does this effect Charges?

SuperBeast
17-04-2008, 16:47
As Merucles and Superbeast demonstrate, precise argument over rules is silly, as people are all too willing to comment on issues that they don't fully understand.
No, especially the bits where the FAQ is in direct contradiction to the rulebook...;)

Akuma asked for a response, I gave one.
If you have a problem with my comments, please feel free to pull them apart.
The fact that certain obvious errors were overlooked in your assessment of the piece in order to take a swipe says more about you than it does about me or Mercules.

Akuma
17-04-2008, 17:21
I'm realy counting on godheads input on this one - thanks all post more !

SuperBeast
17-04-2008, 17:26
I think Godhead's banned at the moment?

knightwire
17-04-2008, 18:12
7.g) If two units are fighting each other and they both have the always strike first rule, the correct method to resolve this combat is as follows: the Always Strike First rule is simply ignored when the models that have this rule are exchanging blows, so all attacks are made in the normal order (taking into account charges, great weapons, etc.).


Simply ignoring ASF doesn't work if there are also non-ASF troops in the same combat. It would mean ASF troops with GWs would go last after all combatants, even those without ASF.

That Guy
17-04-2008, 20:08
Dwarfs i) "A general and his shieldbearers fight as a single model with a unit strength of 3..." Warhammer Armies, Dwarfs, page 29. I am usually of the opinion that RAW is BS. But this seems quite clear to me.

EvC
17-04-2008, 21:02
No, especially the bits where the FAQ is in direct contradiction to the rulebook...;)

Akuma asked for a response, I gave one.
If you have a problem with my comments, please feel free to pull them apart.
The fact that certain obvious errors were overlooked in your assessment of the piece in order to take a swipe says more about you than it does about me or Mercules.

What I mean is just that discussing every single rules interpretation given is pointless, as if everyone weighs in on things that don't always have a known answer, then the thread will be bogged down in a hundred different discussions. Especially when people start saying this that and the other is wrong when it's already been discussed at length on these forums (like dwarfs (i), most notably). I'm not going to go through every sentence of yours to tell you if you're wrong or not, because looking at your post it looks pretty blunt and unpleasant. I'd rather just applaud them on a great peace of work, if that's okay with you? :)

SuperBeast
17-04-2008, 21:20
What I mean is just that discussing every single rules interpretation given is pointless, as if everyone weighs in on things that don't always have a known answer, then the thread will be bogged down in a hundred different discussions. Especially when people start saying this that and the other is wrong when it's already been discussed at length on these forums (like dwarfs (i), most notably). I'm not going to go through every sentence of yours to tell you if you're wrong or not, because looking at your post it looks pretty blunt and unpleasant. I'd rather just applaud them on a great peace of work, if that's okay with you? :)

My point is, most of the comments I raised were because the FAQ was in direct conflict with the rule book.
Not interpreted differently, not misunderstood - completely opposites.

I understood that querying most points would lead to discussion, which is why I stuck to the most obvious ones.

I apologise if any offence was taken, but I'm not in the habit of sparing constructive criticism simply to pat someone on the back.

Akuma
18-04-2008, 07:43
And what about steam tank ? It says that it nets 50% vp for taking 5 wounds of ? is that right ?

Tiamat
18-04-2008, 07:56
Rules solicitors require only one clarification, how to get out the door real fast. :evilgrin: