PDA

View Full Version : Ogre Kingdoms Ironfist question



Bortus
24-10-2005, 07:46
Ok, here's the deal. I'm not fluent in Ogre Kingdoms rules so I just ordered the codex. In the mean time my buddy who's building an Ogre Kingdom army of 2500 pts. says that a unit of Bulls can alternate between using an Ironfist as a weapon or as a shield in the middle of combat. I say you have to choose which way to use it ( use as an additional hand weapon or as a shield) at the beginning of close combat and stick with it until the end of said combat just like everybody else. So, who's right?

Bubble Ghost
24-10-2005, 08:08
First, there's no such thing as an Ogre Kindgoms codex.:p Second, you're right. Page 29. It's pretty clearly worded.

Icepick
24-10-2005, 10:00
I dont have the ogre kingdoms book myself, but i'd have to say that he was right. As with all units with two weapons (i.e - spear and handweapon) i would say that you can alternate between them in combats

WLBjork
24-10-2005, 10:09
Icepick, no one can alternate between weapons when in close combat, unless specifically allowed. This is clearly stated on page 88 of the RT.

TownCryer
24-10-2005, 10:55
it states, and I quote "At the beginning of combat, Ogres equipped with ironfists may choose" there is no place where it states for changing during mid-bash. I did it that way before, but now that its come to my attention I guess it makes abit more sense, but its your call.

Icepick
24-10-2005, 13:06
Icepick, no one can alternate between weapons when in close combat, unless specifically allowed. This is clearly stated on page 88 of the RT.

Hmm, darn. Guess i was lied to by the guys who told me that rule then :P

T10
24-10-2005, 13:53
Or most likely he was as ignorant* as you.

Since it is a matter of selecting a mode for fighting, the Beast of Chaos Braystaff provides a precedent for switching between fighting modes during a prolonged combat. It is easy to make illfounded assumptions that this may apply in other similar situations.

*) Ignorant as in: not knowing the full rules for Ogre Ironfists.

-T10

Makaber
24-10-2005, 15:05
But then again, the Braystaff is very clearly worded, and is an exception from the norm. Thus, unless it specifically say anything to the contrary, the Ironfist remain locked in one "mode" throughout the close combat.

Icepick
24-10-2005, 16:29
Or most likely he was as ignorant* as you.

Since it is a matter of selecting a mode for fighting, the Beast of Chaos Braystaff provides a precedent for switching between fighting modes during a prolonged combat. It is easy to make illfounded assumptions that this may apply in other similar situations.

*) Ignorant as in: not knowing the full rules for Ogre Ironfists.

-T10

Owch :p

No seriously, i didn't assume it, I was just told that it was so by some tramp on the street or something

Bortus
25-10-2005, 08:30
Thanks for all the replies everybody cuz if he ain't gonna believe me he'll believe the masses that's for sure! Oh and by the way Bubble Ghost codex, army book, grocery list...whatever ya wanna call it, you know what I mean?

Atrahasis
25-10-2005, 08:53
codex, army book, grocery list...whatever ya wanna call it, you know what I mean?

40K and Fantasy share several terms that mean entirely different things in the relevant system; Overrun for example.

Keeping the two systems separate is not merely an exercise in pedantry, it reduces confusion.

I will never forget the day that a GT judge told my club buddy that she "couldn't take an armour save and a ward save" with her bloodletters, and that she had to choose between them. No-one had asked his advice, and there were about 5 people around the table, who in unison told him to mind his own business (including my friend's opponent).

Festus
25-10-2005, 10:15
Hi

I will never forget the day that a GT judge told my club buddy that she "couldn't take an armour save and a ward save" with her bloodletters, and that she had to choose between them.

Ermm... how shall I put it...

I do believe that Bloodletters only posess a Ward by virtue of their Daemonic Aura and don't get an armour save at all, right?

Daemonic Characters may have an additional Armour of Khorne, though.

Greetings
Festus

Atrahasis
25-10-2005, 10:20
I do believe that Bloodletters only posess a Ward by virtue of their Daemonic Aura and don't get an armour save at all, right?

Bloodletters have light armour.

Festus
25-10-2005, 10:32
Hi

You are right, of course, sorry for the confusion... :(

Well, I still don't understand why they have armour, but they obviously have some :confused:

Greetings
FEstus

SHEBL
05-11-2005, 21:28
An ogre unit must choose prior to the first round of combat as to whether they will use the Iron Fist as a shield or second hand weapon, and must stick with it until combat is resolved.

mageith
06-11-2005, 06:08
Ogre Ironfist: "At the beginning of each close combat, Ogres equipped with ironfists may choose to use them as an additional hand weapon or as a shield..."

Normally the rule reads: "At the start of the first turn of a close combat, troops can choose which of their weapons to use. Whichever weapon they use must be used for the entire combat..." (88)

I think the Ogres can change their mind every turn. It's the difference between 'each' and 'first'.

Mage Ith

mageith
06-11-2005, 06:10
it states, and I quote "At the beginning of combat, Ogres equipped with ironfists may choose" there is no place where it states for changing during mid-bash. I did it that way before, but now that its come to my attention I guess it makes abit more sense, but its your call.

You misquoted. The first sentence actually reads "At the beginning of EACH CLOSE combat..." At least that how my book reads on page 29 of OK. Maybe you are quoting someplace else?

Mage Ith

Latro
06-11-2005, 08:45
Ogre Ironfist: "At the beginning of each close combat, Ogres equipped with ironfists may choose to use them as an additional hand weapon or as a shield..."

Normally the rule reads: "At the start of the first turn of a close combat, troops can choose which of their weapons to use. Whichever weapon they use must be used for the entire combat..." (88)

I think the Ogres can change their mind every turn. It's the difference between 'each' and 'first'.

Mage Ith

... wouldn't they have simply said "each ROUND of close combat"? A combat lasts until one side either breaks or is destroyed and doesn't restart each round.

:cool:

Atrahasis
06-11-2005, 09:37
I agree with Latro.

There is a BIG difference between "each close combat" and "each turn of close combat".

mageith
06-11-2005, 14:53
... wouldn't they have simply said "each ROUND of close combat"? A combat lasts until one side either breaks or is destroyed and doesn't restart each round.

:cool:
Why couldn't have GW used the same words as the BRB? Why did GW have to use any words? If they hadn't, there'd be no discussion.

I don't think you will find the term 'round' in the rulebook when it comes to close combat. But GW could have made it clearer by either using the term 'turn' or 'phase' (66) or using the verbiage of the BRB.

This question has never come up in a game and I don't play OK, but I have played against them.

Summation: 1) GW changed the words of the BRB. I think they meant something by it. I think they meant to change how the general rule works.

2) The simple English of the OK sentence lets them choose their weapons each (turn/round/phase) of combat.

3) It makes sense, since the Iron fist is simply armor over the forearm of the Ogre and it's nothing like switching from a handweapon to a great weapon.

4)Read the fluff (below) and the description indicates its a blow by blow change. It's pitfighting!

Mage Ith

Originating from the traditional Ogre sport of pitfighting, Ogres often cover their off-hand with some kind of shield, spiked gauntlet or heavy glove. The can be sued to bat aside even the strongest attacks in a similar way to a giant buckler, or merely to smash an enemy's face into an unrecognizable pulp. OK 29

Atrahasis
06-11-2005, 15:07
SNIP

The rule is very clear. Inserting your own interpretation of how the fluff tells us how to play is OK in your own games, but the rules are clear and they are that an ogre must decide at the start of each combat, not that he must decide at teh start of each turn of combat.

mageith
06-11-2005, 15:18
The rule is very clear. Inserting your own interpretation of how the fluff tells us how to play is OK in your own games, but the rules are clear and they are that an ogre must decide at the start of each combat, not that he must decide at teh start of each turn of combat.

:) I think they are clear too.

And your misquoting doesn't help. It's EACH CLOSE COMBAT. See if you can find a defintion of close combat that encompasses several rounds/turns/phases. I tried, but couldn't find one.

Close combat, from page 66, only refers to the close combat phase. It doesn't refer to the whole many-turned event that some close combats go into.

The original rule on 88 is very precise in refering the the FIRST TURN of close combat. The reason GW did that is because generally close combat refers to a phase, a single phase.

And why would you ignore the fluff when the simple English and fluff go together and rather choose an convulated non sensical interpretation?

Mage Ith

Festus
06-11-2005, 15:26
Hi

The rule is very clear.
Sorry to say so, but to me it seems that this rule is definitely *not* clear, but leaves a lot to be interpreted.

I don't quite like both versions well enough to subscribe to them, but if I have to decide, I'd say MageIth has the *fluffier* and thus better interpretation...

Greetings
Festus

Tarax
06-11-2005, 15:50
Let's look at Wood Elf Wardancers, p.19:

'In each round of combat that they fight... They cannot choose the same dance in two consecutive turns of the same combat engagement.'

Here they talk about 'round of combat'.

'Each combat' would mean 'every different combat fought during the game', without using the words phase, turn or whatever.

So in each combat the Ogres would have to choose, as much as any other unit, how to use their ironfist.

And if we're going to use fluff in here, I can think of several other fluff-rules which I like to use and which are not in the rules themselves. 'Spit fire' or Killing Blow anyone?

mageith
06-11-2005, 16:21
Let's look at Wood Elf Wardancers, p.19:

'In each round of combat that they fight... They cannot choose the same dance in two consecutive turns of the same combat engagement.'

Here they talk about 'round of combat'.

I did say the BRB,no? Anyway, good find. Also note how they describe extended combat as a "combat engagement". In addition, I found another in the BRB on page 73.



'Each combat' would mean 'every different combat fought during the game', without using the words phase, turn or whatever.

Based on what is this definition? Besides the term is "each close combat". I'd say the term "close combat" when not modified refers only to phase (66). Your wood elf rule had to make up a term "combat engagement" to change the default definition of 'close combat'. The rule on page 88 adds terms to do the same thing: "At the start of the first turn of a combat.." This is because without those modifying words, the term merely refers to one round/phase/turn of close combat.

This is really key, IMO. To just what does "close combat" refer when unmodified? To an extended combat or to the close combat phase? The assumptions we make determine the interpretation, that is, until someone can find a defintion. Page 66 where CLOSE COMBAT is described in big 48 point letters is only taking about the phase, not any extended combat or combat engagement.



So in each combat the Ogres would have to choose, as much as any other unit, how to use their ironfist.

Even though their rule is different? I wonder why then, was there even mention of it all? Just a reminder note. Not likely. If it was a reminder note, I'd expect GW to refer to it or at least use the same words.



And if we're going to use fluff in here, I can think of several other fluff-rules which I like to use and which are not in the rules themselves. 'Spit fire' or Killing Blow anyone?
And please note that my fluff argument was just one of four points I was making in my summantion. And I think your point on your examples is where rules don't agree with fluff, and yet I am arguing that in this case the rules do agree with the fluff.

Anyway, I think the question is apparently unresolvable without further outside input or someone finds an irrefutable defintion hidden somewhere.

I'd obviously let my Ogre opponent change his use of the Ironfist each turn. If he doesn't want to, that's fine too.
Mage Ith

Latro
06-11-2005, 17:51
Even though their rule is different? I wonder why then, was there even mention of it all? Just a reminder note. Not likely. If it was a reminder note, I'd expect GW to refer to it or at least use the same words.


Probably because not every unit (more likely _no_ other unit) has a piece of equipment that can function as two different choices of basic equipment. In such a case it's perfectly logical to state what the equipment does and when this happens.

As fas as I know in every other case of equipment or rule that can serve different roles during combat it is clearly mentioned when this can be done during combat (= before each round) ... everything else with choice must be determened before combat and stays that way until the combat is over.

... if you ofcourse have evidence of another piece of equipment that doesn't follow this description, feel free to post it. Untill that time I'll ust stick to something that looks very clear to me.

(PS not every word has to be specificly defined for a rule to be clear)


:cool:

Festus
06-11-2005, 19:43
Hi

Probably because not every unit (more likely _no_ other unit) has a piece of equipment that can function as two different choices of basic equipment.
Untrue.
Braystaff, the Glade Guards new toys (sorry, don't know their exact names), and probably a few others I don't remember right now...

Greetings
Festus

Latro
06-11-2005, 20:00
Hi

Untrue.
Braystaff, the Glade Guards new toys (sorry, don't know their exact names), and probably a few others I don't remember right now...

Greetings
Festus

Okay, should have thought of those ... then again, it changes nothing about the meaning of my post since none of them give any reason for confusion about when and what they do.

... or do they?

To be honoust, I can't really understand why there should any reason for confusion about the word "combat" ... unless there really is somewhere something where it means "each round", but so far I have only seen evidence of the opposite.

:cool:

mageith
06-11-2005, 20:11
but so far I have only seen evidence of the opposite.

Please share.

Festus
06-11-2005, 20:14
Hi

The problem is, that the rules term *combat* is not defined and is used for different things in the rules, alongside combat phase, round of combat, turn, etc.

Often all those terms refer to the same concept.
Equally as often they refer to different concepts.

An example:
I don't own the English version of the rules, but the German translation is rather faithful.

Here we find the terms (my translation) "combat" and "combat phase" in the same sentence describing the same concept: A round of h-t-h combat done during a combat phase. (p.71, 1st column, last but one paragraph and 2nd column, last paragrah respectively, first sentence with both: go check)

Greetings
Festus

SHEBL
06-11-2005, 21:14
On page 88 of the rule book it is pretty clear. "at the start of the first turn of a combat, troops can choose which of their weapons to use. Whichever weapon they use must be used for the entire combat." It's not a far leap to apply this to the Ogre Ironfist.

mageith
06-11-2005, 21:53
On page 88 of the rule book it is pretty clear. "at the start of the first turn of a combat, troops can choose which of their weapons to use. Whichever weapon they use must be used for the entire combat." It's not a far leap to apply this to the Ogre Ironfist.
:) We seem to be back at the beginning.

You are quoting a general rule when the Ironfist has a specific rule on the same subject, so the general rule is moot. Please note that the Ironfist rule is different (and has been quoted above) and that the Ironfist is not choosing between two different weapons but using the same weapon in a different mode, so the general rule doesn't even apply.

A similar weapon with multimodes is the braystaff and it can be switched each round during an extended combat. Of course the rule is clearer on that one. GW included one more word in the Braystaff rule, the word "round": "A braystaff can be used in one of two ways (nominate which at the start of each Close combat round)."

It is a far leap to assume that changing between a halberd and a sword every turn is the same as defending with a wrapped forearm and smashing with the same armor wrapped forearm, especially when the rules reads differently.

I noticed that this question was asked on the Ogre FAX on the GW web site but when the Ogre FaX was released it wasn't answered. Not sure what that means.

Mage Ith

WLBjork
07-11-2005, 05:14
Probably means that GW can't make their minds up over what they meant ;)

I have to agree that, at least in principle, as the item is in continuous operation, the mode can be switched between at the start of each round of close combat in the same manner as the Bray Staff and similar items.

Latro
07-11-2005, 08:17
Please share.

:rolleyes: ... you could have easilly thought of them yourself since they all have been mentioned before:

- equipment/abilities/rules that require you to choose before the start of combat and last the entire combat ... with a rule that uses the single word "combat".

1). the general rule from the rulebook concerning carrying multiple weapons

2). the Ironfist

3). ... anything I have missed?

- equipment/abilities/rules that can be changed before each round of combat ... with a rule that uses that describes this as "round of combat".

1). the different dances from the Wardancers

2). the braystaff

3). ... anything I have missed?


Now would you please post a documented case of equipment/ability/rule that can be changed each round but is only described with the word "combat" in it's rule? Because so far I have seen nothing that actually backs your claim with anything solid.

You can ofcourse make a pretty strong case that it would make sense for such equipment etc etc ... (with which I actually agree), but saying that the rules are unclear is something I don't buy because there simply isn't anything that points in that direction.

Just my two cents

:cool:

SHEBL
07-11-2005, 14:36
:)

You are quoting a general rule when the Ironfist has a specific rule on the same subject, so the general rule is moot.

GW included one more word in the Braystaff rule, the word "round":


Mage Ith

1) The specific rule does not contradict the general rule so therefore it still applies. The ogre army book states you must choose at the beginning of combat.
2) GW did not include the word ROUND in the rules concerning the Ironfist, so the braystaff example is moot.

mageith
07-11-2005, 15:06
1) The specific rule does not contradict the general rule so therefore it still applies.
You missed the point. The 'general' rule applies to changing WEAPONS not changing MODES. It is moot.

SHEBL
07-11-2005, 15:10
Interpret as you wish, but it was you that stated it was the same subject.

"You are quoting a general rule when the Ironfist has a specific rule on the same subject"

Either way it does not change the fact that in the OK Army Book it specifically says you must choose at the beginning of combat and does not mention the word "round" anywhere.

mageith
07-11-2005, 15:23
Interpret as you wish, but it does not change the fact that in the OK Army Book it specifically says you must choose at the beginning of combat and does not mention the word "round" anywhere.
Again misquoted or misparaphrased. You choose at the beginning of EACH close combat. The term round is not needed. The term each is sufficient.

As far as I know, no one has come up with a definitive meaning for "close combat". Which is the key question. Unmodified does it mean round/phase/turn or does it mean extended combat. Needless to say, I think it's use is just a combat phase.

No one has even come up with a clear example of when close combat means extended combat except when its modified, have they? Page 66 where the term CLOSE COMBAT is detailed is only talking about the phase. Clearly it's then a contextual thing.

Since the general rule plainly doesn't apply to the Ironfist, then all we have is the rule for the Ironfist itself and if one has trouble interpreting it, then read the fluff. It makes it quite clear as to the CONTEXT of "each close combat."

I think I've been around this barn at least twice, so I'll leave it at that. I don't think there is anything else to be said (again) on the subject.

Mage Ith

Latro
07-11-2005, 15:56
I think I've been around this barn at least twice, so I'll leave it at that. I don't think there is anything else to be said (again) on the subject.

Mage Ith

Good move ... it saves you the trouble of having to explain why in every other instance of equipment/abilities with different modes in different rounds the words "round of combat" are used ... but not with the Ironfist huh? :rolleyes:

:cool:

NakedFisherman
07-11-2005, 19:40
GW does not need to explicitly define every words they use. You know what 'each combat' means.

At any rate, they do define what a 'Combat' is. It's on page 67. I won't bother typing it up, because I figure with all the time everyone wasted on this thread you could save your replies and read the BRB instead.

Cpt. Drill
07-11-2005, 20:35
I think some user discression is advised!

It is unlikely that iron fists will defy the rules all other weapons fallow without strict and clear wording...

Festus
07-11-2005, 20:36
Hi

At any rate, they do define what a 'Combat' is. It's on page 67. I won't bother typing it up, because I figure with all the time everyone wasted on this thread you could save your replies and read the BRB instead.
Oh, please, type it up, mate...

I - with just a German rulebook to read in - seem to make out the sentence under 2 on said page to refer to *combat* as just one *combat phase* and *each combat* as *each combat phase*...

Greetings
Festus

Latro
07-11-2005, 22:38
Hi

Oh, please, type it up, mate...

I - with just a German rulebook to read in - seem to make out the sentence under 2 on said page to refer to *combat* as just one *combat phase* and *each combat* as *each combat phase*...

Greetings
Festus

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight ... that must be the reason why they use "each round of combat" to describe exactly that everytime ... except for Ironfists. :rolleyes:

:D

Festus
08-11-2005, 10:02
Hi

No need to get sarcastic here, mate:

The German text gives it as (my translation)

"2. Combat Result
Calculate for each *combat* which side won the *combat* and what the *combat result* is. [...]"

Here *combat* distinctly refers to *round of h-t-h-fighting*, even the *each* doesn't change this to the whole of the combat engagement...

So MageIth seems to have a point here, if the wording of the Ironfists is basically the same...

Greetings
Festus

SHEBL
08-11-2005, 20:17
They specifically added the word round when referring to the braystaff, and specifically left it out of the ironfist rules. There is no need to interpret anything!

NakedFisherman
08-11-2005, 21:21
Hi

No need to get sarcastic here, mate:

The German text gives it as (my translation)

"2. Combat Result
Calculate for each *combat* which side won the *combat* and what the *combat result* is. [...]"

Here *combat* distinctly refers to *round of h-t-h-fighting*, even the *each* doesn't change this to the whole of the combat engagement...

So MageIth seems to have a point here, if the wording of the Ironfists is basically the same...

Greetings
Festus

It says to work out 'each combat'. In other words, you work out the combat results for every combat that's going on. If you decide at the start of a 'combat', you decide when the combat starts. Nowhere in the section titled 'Combats' does it refer to rounds, because it's referring specifically to the entire combat and makes no mention of turns or anything else temporal.

I don't know where you guys are getting this idea that 'combat' means each round. It's in plain English and is really not that hard to comprehend.

Latro
08-11-2005, 21:33
Hi

No need to get sarcastic here, mate:


well ... I did add smileys to soften it up a bit. No offense ;)

But seriously, how could I not get at least a bit sarcastic after seeing all those attempts to ignore the invitation to explain why Ironfists do NOT and all other change-per-round things DO have the impossible-to-misunderstand "each round of combat" in the rule?

:cool:

Festus
08-11-2005, 21:54
Hi

Well I still don't get it:
In point 2. of the combat rules it talks about working out who won the *combat*.

As we all know, you work out a combat result after each *round of combat* (otherwise how would you know if there was a winner?).

So in this context, *combat* does mean *single combat phase* or *single round of combat*, or doesn't it?

Greetings
Festus

NakedFisherman
09-11-2005, 00:04
Hi

Well I still don't get it:
In point 2. of the combat rules it talks about working out who won the *combat*.

As we all know, you work out a combat result after each *round of combat* (otherwise how would you know if there was a winner?).

So in this context, *combat* does mean *single combat phase* or *single round of combat*, or doesn't it?

Greetings
Festus

No, it means to fight the combat out as detailed in the close combat section.

Why do you think the BRB rules state to choose a weapon at the start of a combat? The OK book says the same thing -- Mageith's point that 'combat' is never defined in the BRB is not only irrelevant but it's also entirely wrong.

Festus
09-11-2005, 08:16
Hi

No, it means to fight the combat out as detailed in the close combat section.
Funnily enough, still noone answered what the simple term *combat* refers to in the instance given above:

A. a *whole combat engagement* from charge to break

or

B. a *round of close combat*, fought in a single combat phase

:confused:



Why do you think the BRB rules state to choose a weapon at the start of a combat? The OK book says the same thing -- Mageith's point that 'combat' is never defined in the BRB is not only irrelevant but it's also entirely wrong.

Well, the Ogres choose a single Weapon to fight the whole combat engagement with: They choose an Ironfist. :rolleyes:

The question is: Do they have to use it the same way all of the time... ?

TBH, I don't really care, as I usually play neither with nor agaist OK, but I still think that the argument can go either way really. And MageIth still has a point there which you lot has not cancelled yet, apart from not proving but simply stating things like:


Mageith's point that 'combat' is never defined in the BRB is not only irrelevant but it's also entirely wrong

I don't know where you guys are getting this idea that 'combat' means each round. It's in plain English and is really not that hard to comprehend.

...but saying that the rules are unclear is something I don't buy because there simply isn't anything that points in that direction.

Either way it does not change the fact that in the OK Army Book it specifically says you must choose at the beginning of combat and does not mention the word "round" anywhere.

You know what 'each combat' means.

At any rate, they do define what a 'Combat' is. It's on page 67.
And when I come along and ask the simple question to tell me where exacly the BRB defines what *combat* is and that it is always used as a fixed rules term, you cannot...

How is that?

Greetings
Festus

Latro
09-11-2005, 10:15
Hi

Funnily enough, still noone answered what the simple term *combat* refers to in the instance given above:

A. a *whole combat engagement* from charge to break

or

B. a *round of close combat*, fought in a single combat phase

:confused:

I'll go for answer A! ... and I have a good reason for that. I'll even give you some specifics! If yo look at the combat sequence in the rulebook (page 66) you'll notice the following:

- In part 1 of the sequence the are using the term "combat" to define the fighting action that takes place on the board, they even mention that several combats can be fought at the same time.

- In part 2 of the sequence there's again that word "combat" ... since it's still the same sequence, it stands to reason that "each combat" simply means what it says: each different combat fought on the field at that time.

More so, all over pages 66 and 67 and the illustrated example they are using the word "combat" and "each combat" to point out what exactly a combat is and that there might be several going on at the same time.

... but yes, you are right in the sense that they don't have a clear printed definition printed of the word "combat". My guess would be that at this point there is no reason for it because in the way they use it on those pages there is no difference (especially in the sequence) in it's meaning and consequences.

However, when the difference between "combat" and "round of combat" does become important (weapon rules etc) the rules are very consistend in the use of "round of combat" when that's what it means ... no exceptions, no reason for doubt.

... and then comes the Ironfist along, and suddenly there's room for doubt :wtf:


And when I come along and ask the simple question to tell me where exacly the BRB defines what *combat* is and that it is always used as a fixed rules term, you cannot...

How is that?

Greetings
Festus

Well, since I took the trouble to answer your question ... now it's up to you to come with a good explanation why all change-per-round equipment/abilities are defined with "roud of combat", but the Ironfist not.

:cool:

oma
11-11-2005, 20:50
i think that it is just wishful thinking that it is allowed to switch between each round of combat, the CLEARLY clarefy it in the other rules, the reason they didn't do it in the OK book was cause thats not what they meant! No changing in between the combat rounds..

the thing i wonder is if you use ironfist as a shield, do you still loose the ogre club -1 armor save throw? it says that if you use ogre club together with ironfist or another weapon (key word weapon) it does not work.. but if you use it with a ironfist shield (not weapon) does it work?

Festus
12-11-2005, 07:16
Hi

I'll go for answer A! ... and I have a good reason for that. I'll even give you some specifics! If yo look at the combat sequence in the rulebook (page 66) you'll notice the following:

- In part 1 of the sequence the are using the term "combat" to define the fighting action that takes place on the board, they even mention that several combats can be fought at the same time.

- In part 2 of the sequence there's again that word "combat" ... since it's still the same sequence, it stands to reason that "each combat" simply means what it says: each different combat fought on the field at that time.

More so, all over pages 66 and 67 and the illustrated example they are using the word "combat" and "each combat" to point out what exactly a combat is and that there might be several going on at the same time.
funnily enough, these all point towards one round of combat fought during the same turn. :eyebrows:


... but yes, you are right in the sense that they don't have a clear printed definition printed of the word "combat". My guess would be that at this point there is no reason for it because in the way they use it on those pages there is no difference (especially in the sequence) in it's meaning and consequences.

However, when the difference between "combat" and "round of combat" does become important (weapon rules etc) the rules are very consistend in the use of "round of combat" when that's what it means ... no exceptions, no reason for doubt.

Well, as I pointed out earlier, there is still the doubt arising fom page 66 point 2.:rolleyes:

Well, since I took the trouble to answer your question ... now it's up to you to come with a good explanation why all change-per-round equipment/abilities are defined with "roud of combat", but the Ironfist not.

Well, since you didn't answer it truthfully(because on p.66 *combat* is used for the part of a combat that results in a CombatResult, aka *round of fighting*), I still see no reason for believing your interpretation more than I believe mine.

But TBH, I am purely talking rules perspective here: I wouldn't make a fuss out of it either way during the actual gaming...

Festus

CriLmAn
14-11-2005, 00:18
festus: i would like to point out the quote in your sig, i think this clearly answers the problem.
Since you are attempting to read very cleverly to convince us we are wrong on something that seems very simple to most people in this thread

Wintersdark
14-11-2005, 02:25
Ok.... The crux of the problem is clearly the definition of the term "combat" - wether it means just one combat round, or the entire engagement.

A simple solution to this exists.

"combat" persists BETWEEN rounds, obviously, or else you could not "charge into combat", and units would not be considered "in combat" outside of the combat phase.

As units are ALWAYS considered to be "in combat" at all times when opposing units are in base to base combat, it is clear that the condition "combat" persists from the moment those troops enter base to base contact until the point where they leave base to base contact.

Thus, "each combat" clearly does not equate to each round of a particular combat but rather the entirety of a given combat engagement, defined as above.

Or, you could look at it from this perspective. If you are choosing at the start of each combat (OK Army Book rule), when, if not at the point that the models were moved into base to base contact, did that combat start? At the start of the combat phase? If that's the case, then those troops would not have been "in combat" before the start of the combat phase, and therefore would be eligible targets for all sorts of magic and shooting, which of course they are not.

Wintersdark
14-11-2005, 02:27
Oh, as an aside, I'm really disappointed in you, Mage Ith. Bringing fluff into a rules debate? I realise it was only one of your points, but really, you're the only always reinforcing that Fluff != Rules when the fluff does not support your position. Tisk, tisk.

No fluff in rules debates!

Festus
14-11-2005, 09:36
Hi

festus: i would like to point out the quote in your sig, i think this clearly answers the problem.
Since you are attempting to read very cleverly to convince us we are wrong on something that seems very simple to most people in this thread
I am not trying to convince anybody. I am talking rules here and I try to point out that the argument can go either way, owing to the way the rules are written (aka sloppily).

I don't advocate the one or the other, I merely show that the rules are not as clear as some want to make us believe.

Greetings
FEstus

Festus
14-11-2005, 09:45
Ok.... The crux of the problem is clearly the definition of the term "combat" - wether it means just one combat round, or the entire engagement.
Agreed. This is the problem I see as well.


A simple solution to this exists.
Good. What is it?



<snip ... reasons>
Thus, "each combat" clearly does not equate to each round of a particular combat but rather the entirety of a given combat engagement, defined as above.
Unfortunately, p.66 still points in the oposite direction, I am afraid: Here *combat* is the part of the game that finishes with the calculation of a Combat Result: ie. a round of h-t-h combat.

Yes, before you ask: I understand your point and I will probably think along the same lines, but if I ever play against an OK army, I will give that player the benefit of doubt here, as the situation is not as clear as you present it to be.

Greetings
Festus

Wintersdark
14-11-2005, 23:56
Unfortunately, p.66 still points in the oposite direction, I am afraid: Here *combat* is the part of the game that finishes with the calculation of a Combat Result: ie. a round of h-t-h combat.If that is the case, then troops would no longer be in combat after combat result was figured and break tests taken, even if they were passed.

Thus, page 66, "work out which side has won each combat and by how much." *COULD* be interpreted to mean that "combat" means just that particular combat phase, one could also argue that it simply means each combat on the board. It's not clear enough to be a sufficient arguement, considering for all other purposes combat extends the entire duration troops remain in base to base contact with the enemy.

BRB, Page 67:
"So long as fighting units are interconnected, they are participating in the same combat."


Yes, before you ask: I understand your point and I will probably think along the same lines, but if I ever play against an OK army, I will give that player the benefit of doubt here, as the situation is not as clear as you present it to be.I honestly wouldn't care enough to stop my opponent if he wanted to play that way.

The reality, though, is that arguing that the wording on Pg 66 clearly defined "combat" as a single combat round is very, very weak, considering how everywhere else in the game system the state of "being in combat" is defined as being in base to base contact with the enemy, irregardless of phase.

For example, Panic Cause #3 - Charged in the side or rear while engaged in combat. If "combat" only refers to the the time when troops are actually making attack rolls in the close combat phase, then this will be a pretty rare circumstance. In fact, it will only happen when a unit is pursuing or overrunning, never in the movement phase.

It should be noted that units can win or lose a combat, without that combat ending. The combat continues if the loser passes his break test. This is clear - if not, all sorts of wierd things would happen with interactions with other rules, such as targetting, panic, etc.