PDA

View Full Version : Vampire invocation.



Spirit
26-02-2009, 11:14
Can you cast invocation of nehek on a unit whilst it is engaged in the rear? Or in the rear and the front?

You may only add to the back rank and im not aware of any rule allowing you to move enemy models out of the way.

This right?

Asmodiseus
26-02-2009, 11:16
As far as I know most people allow you to adjust the back unit as you raise, but this is most likely not RAW.

theunwantedbeing
26-02-2009, 11:47
Raised models go to the back of the unit. If there is not space, tough luck.

EvC
26-02-2009, 12:15
Main rulebook explicitly says units in combat cannot move, so you cannot move the unit fighting the undead to the rear.

...although, an old FAQ said you could. So that's good enough for some people.

Jagosaja
26-02-2009, 14:11
Raised models go to the back of the unit. If there is not space, tough luck.


Main rulebook explicitly says units in combat cannot move, so you cannot move the unit fighting the undead to the rear.

...although, an old FAQ said you could. So that's good enough for some people.

So, two units charge a unit of zombies, on in front, one in rear, and each kills enough to wipe out a rank in contact. At least one of the units has to move to remain in contact with zombies. But as you say you cannot move units in combat. So, is one of those not in contact anymore???? No, they have to move to remain in contact, or better to say at least one unit has to move.

This does not mean the unit has to move if zombies (or anything alse for that matter) are summoned, but seems like a viable option to me.

EvC
26-02-2009, 15:30
As always with any rules discussion, the exceptions to the rules are exceptions to the rules, and will be specifically noted where applicable. The rules specifically tell us to move a flanking/ rearing unit up to maintain combat when you redress the ranks- they do not tell us to do so for raising to the rear. Hence, you will move your models up to maintain contact, but those same models will not thoughfully step back to allow new undead to be raised.

XXL
27-02-2009, 06:42
No they will not thoughfully step back to allow new undead to be raised, they will be pushed away by the power of corps standing up and digging themselfs from graves and stuff... Have you guys never seen a zombie movie? Some big boobed blonde chick stands on a grave and suddenly a pair of hands is there to take care of her!

Asmodiseus
27-02-2009, 07:36
All in all I have yet to play one opponent that doesnt let me do a little bit of shifting when it comes to raising models. Generally speaking most people are playing to have a good time and realise that summoning can be a real pain, especially when zombies are involved, as long as your not trying to abuse it.

Of course in tournament play, and occasionally if you are playing someone who thinks every game is a life or death tournament event, someone will probably complain. If that happens you just have to accept it as he is correct.

EldarBishop
27-02-2009, 12:44
oh give me a effin break :wtf: ...

If the undead unit gets smaller, you move in order to maintain contact.

Conversely, if the undead unit gets bigger, you'd have to move as well.

Should there be an exception listed or a FAQ... yes there should.

However, the absence of such a FAQ should not deter from the spirit of the game! Undead are meant to raise models, trying to be a *explictive of choice* just to win the game will ensure you a very short list of opponents to play in future.

theunwantedbeing
27-02-2009, 12:55
Not happy your overpowered broken army has a weakness eh EldarBishop?

A way of preventing single dice spam raising and apparently VC players don't like this and think it's not in the spirit of the game.
It's perfectly in the spirit of the game.

Raised undead models go to the back of the unit, if there's no space the enemy aren't going to move out of the way and let them raise, they'll be stamping on the heads and stabbing with their weapons to prevent it.

Raising a skeleton champion in unit where there is no room, he get's stepped on by the other skeletons in his unit as they're too dim to get out of the way.

Hardly unreasonable.

SteelTitan
27-02-2009, 12:59
I totally agree with EldarBishop. I wish more ppl would more often think in the spirit of the game instead of what is best for their army :S

Like XXL said, "in reality" zombies would not just join the unit in the rear off course. They come up from all sides. For ease of gameplay the unit is ranked up but that doesnt mean you should be lame about reasons of practicality.

If anything the unit in the rear should get automatic S2 hits because they are grabbed and attacked from below, unaware of the dead below them!

EvC
27-02-2009, 13:10
The spirit of the game differs a lot, usually depending on whose advantage is at stake, funny that. I tend to think that it makes excellent sense that the one way to finally deliver the killing blow to undead units is to surround them and chop them to pieces, and saying "no raising to the rear" fits that theme.

Plus, in terms of balance, it makes sense that there is a way to stop the raising- all it requires is playing well enough to get rear charges. I can see why poorer Vampire Counts players would be concerned about getting outplayed and suffering for it, instead of it simply being solved by one-dice raising as usual...

SteelTitan
27-02-2009, 13:20
Since when does surrounding undead make any sense? :eyebrows: How does that stop them from being raised right below you, behind you, crawling back up?

I think it only makes sense to stop the raising by killing the one raising them in the first place. The zombies themselves keep on coming back, even though you stand on them, surround them, etc because they are commanded by a caster. It's not like the zombies have something to say in the matter...:D

Asmodiseus
27-02-2009, 13:24
You gotta love the "omg vampires are broken so we gotta be asses to play against to stop them" line.

And Unwantedbeing, since when does somebody who plays Dark Elves think its ok to whine about someones broken army? At least if you played OK or O&G I could have a little sympathy for you.

Urgat
27-02-2009, 14:08
What if there's another unit 1" behind the unit rear-charging said squeletton unit? You're moving that one too, and so on?
Don't get me wrong, I've never had this situation occur, I've fought my share of undead armies, and I do move my unit when the OP case happens, but I know that some cases I will refuse to (if it ever happens), for instance if moving my unit back has it get in the way of one of my other units, pushes it in difficult terrain and so on.

EldarBishop
27-02-2009, 14:12
Cant say that I generally spam single die raising anyways.

If you want to prevent the raisings... there is a game mechanic for that purpose... it's called Dispel Dice (dispel scrolls, some other form of magical defenses). Sure, you won't be able to stop *all* of it if the VC player has a heavy magic phase... but when you show up with a dispel pool of 3 or 4 dice you shouldn't be able to bitch about getting owned in the magic phase!

I don't complain about your 80, 100, whatever dice a turn shooting phase...

Atrahasis
27-02-2009, 14:18
Are you suggesting that the existence of one mechanic for a purpose precludes the existence of any other mechanic that achieves that purpose?

theunwantedbeing
27-02-2009, 14:21
So your saying that killing the enemy mages in the combat phase isnt a way of stopping them from casting?
Or killing them in the shooting phase?
You can only stop troops being raised by dispelling the raise spell?

Even though this means that vs a very heavy magic VC army, your unlikely to actually achieve this and may have your unit pushed back into say...impassable terrain.

Hows this for an extreme example.
A VC unit is engaged on all sides, each opposing enemy unit has the rear of their unit flush against a table edge and so is utterly incapable of moving backwards at all.
The VC unit is a full block and there is no room to place additional models if raised.
So in this example
Putting additional models forces one of the units invilved in the combat to have to move, despite that being impossible.

What now?
Are they moved anyway and if they get pushed off the table tough luck?

That is what you are sugguesting EldarBishop, Asmodiseus and SteelTitan.
Clearly something is wrong with your way of thinking as it ceases to work.

Asmodiseus
27-02-2009, 14:34
First off if you actually bothered to read my post you would see that I specifically stated that I agree with you and this is not allowed in the rules.

The only thing I said is everyone I have played with is pretty forgiving when it comes to raising. And Urgat is correct if the raising would force a unit into some game altering position then I would not attempt to raise.

@Eldarbishop & Steeltitan you cant really win this discussion as IoN does not state that you can push models back. So just know that 95% of gamers out there (At least in friendly matchs, cant speak for tournaments obviously) will be cool with you adjusting models a bit. When you run into power gamers who refuse to let you, just say ok, make sure he is following every rule in the book throughout the remainder of your game, and dont play them again.

neXus6
27-02-2009, 14:35
Well Unwanted seeing as you are the one who is ALWAYS pushing the "tough luck" arguments, yes, that unit is pushed off the table and killed.
:rolleyes:

In regular games I would let them be summoned as I like the image of the undead crawling up out of the ground. Fudging the rules in the name of fun and the flow of the game on occation is just a natural part of wargaming.

I see how this could cause problem is a tournament setting...but tourney players who kick up a fuss about niggly rules are the lowest of the low and ruin the hobby.

By the way I play Orcs and Goblins and Beastmen...so Unwanted I suppose I should bow to your Dark Elf influence knowledge of what makes an army cheesy and broken.

Sifal
27-02-2009, 14:37
I'm unsure as to which side of this argument makes more sense or which i agree with. It would be a nice tactical advantage for the opponent to have to get a rear charge to stop raising as well as kill the general and magic users. As a VC player I wouldn't mind not being able to raise models if my unit was engaged in the front AND rear it seems fair enough that if the opponent managed to do that they generally deserve the VP's for the unit. HOWEVER, it also seems that if GW intended the unit to not be able to raise if the front and rear are engaged they really would have mentioned it just after, 'models are added to the rear of the unit....' (I know GW do word things badly but have a little faith that they intended the unit to be moved or 'fudged' in this case just as units are when aligning combat or friendly models are moved back to allow raised models to be added to the rear of a unit etc)

EldarBishop
27-02-2009, 14:40
@The unwantedbeing: example is *impossible* to achieve anyways, since the units with their back to impassable terrain would not have been able to charge.

@Atarhasis: I am saying that there is a mechanic for stopping magic, it's called Dispelling. As oppose to trying to work the rules so prevent a spell from working.

(Sorry, I haven't got my book handy) If the spell says "place models at the back of the unit", why shouldn't they go there?

So, if you have your Dark Elves completely boxed in on all sides, and there are no spaces anywhere at all... then your assassin can't be revealed either...

*looks forward to a (cough) fun rules lawyering game*

Atrahasis
27-02-2009, 14:42
@The unwantedbeing: example is *impossible* to achieve anyways, since the units with their back to impassable terrain would not have been able to charge.Sure they could - they used to be smaller, but have since been made larger with Invocation ;)

EldarBishop
27-02-2009, 14:45
lol... If you managed to that, then power to you...

theunwantedbeing
27-02-2009, 14:46
So, if you have your Dark Elves completely boxed in on all sides, and there are no spaces anywhere at all... then your assassin can't be revealed either...

*looks forward to a (cough) fun rules lawyering game*

Exactly, what's the issue?
I'm a dark elf player and I have no issue with that.

EldarBishop
27-02-2009, 14:52
My issue is, that it's *not* in the spirit of the game...

I'd let you reveal the assassin, he's suppose to be hiding and get revealed at the last second and attack.

Just like VC are suppose to raise skeletons...

EvC
27-02-2009, 14:53
@Atarhasis: I am saying that there is a mechanic for stopping magic, it's called Dispelling. As oppose to trying to work the rules so prevent a spell from working.

This is a totally ridiculous contention. If someone places their unit 1" from the back of a Skeleton unit and also manages to block their movement away from the location, then would you also tell them that they are "working the rules" (implying they're a gamey sunnovagunn), that they should only try and stop your raising through dispel dice (and no other horrific attempt at using the dreaded, gamreuining art known as "tactics"), and try and make your opponent bend the rules to avoid the fact you've been outplayed?


(Sorry, I haven't got my book handy) If the spell says "place models at the back of the unit", why shouldn't they go there?

Because there's no space...


So, if you have your Dark Elves completely boxed in on all sides, and there are no spaces anywhere at all... then your assassin can't be revealed either...

If you've achieved a charge on four fronts simultaneously, then well done you. Have a bonus reward for being such a good player. And what sounds unfair about that exactly? Sounds better than "Okay you've been outplayed- have an advantage that mitigates your opponent's skillful play. Now would you care to use some Daemons, sir?"

Surrounding and penning in the VC troops doesn't stop you raising. No Vampire player should ever not have access to Raise Dead- you can raise Zombies. You can try some of your own dreaded tactics (Sorry- invocation spamming aint a tactic), and get flank and rear charges of your own, you can commit your own fighty troops (You have brought some, right- it's not all casting vampires and skeletons I hope), and try and win the combat fair and square- then you can even turn around your Skeleton unit and raise to its newly-freed rear next turn. Wow, them tactics eh, I hope nobody ever tries them against me...

EldarBishop
27-02-2009, 15:01
This is a totally ridiculous contention. If someone places their unit 1" from the back of a Skeleton unit and also manages to block their movement away from the location, then would you also tell them that they are "working the rules" ... ?

Actually, the rules tell us that you can't place models within 1" of an enemy unit unless you are in combat (pretty sure, unless I'm getting my 40k mixed up).

Why is it totally ridiculous that you should use dispel dice to dispel spells? What else would you like to use them for?

If you want to outmaneuvre me, and gain benefits for it... then go ahead. IN THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME... VC raise skeletons, and boxing them in the front/back in combat to prevent it does NOT seem to be IN THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME to me.

(Since nobody else seems to get that, I've CAPS it this time)

Atrahasis
27-02-2009, 15:02
NOT seem to be IN THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME to me.The important words are the ones you haven't capitalised.

EvC
27-02-2009, 15:47
Actually, the rules tell us that you can't place models within 1" of an enemy unit unless you are in combat (pretty sure, unless I'm getting my 40k mixed up).

Precisely- that's using the rules to stop the enemy being able to raising. You have attacked those of us that would do that before.


Why is it totally ridiculous that you should use dispel dice to dispel spells? What else would you like to use them for?

Haha, well done. No, it's ridiculous that you should only be able to prevent spells from working by using dispel dice. So every time I hide a fragile unit from an enemy mage with a magic missile, I am being gamey, because I'm using something other than dispel dice to stop his magic... oh, what a mighty cad I am!


If you want to outmaneuvre me, and gain benefits for it... then go ahead. IN THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME... VC raise skeletons, and boxing them in the front/back in combat to prevent it does NOT seem to be IN THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME to me.

So putting Skeletons 1" behind an enemy unit to stop them raising = in the spirit of the game, but as soon as that unit charges the unit, it's fair game to push them back (despite it being explicitly against the rules) and make space? Why does the spirit of the game mean that pushing back models in combat is fair, but it's not fair to do so to models out of combat? What am I missing here?


(Since nobody else seems to get that, I've CAPS it this time)

And if there's one thing the internet has taught us, it's that repeating an argument in caps is the best way to win a debate. It's even higher than sarcasm.

Edit: just to be clear: according to EldarBishop: if we have the situation as seen in the left side of the attachment, if the blue player tries to tell the purple undead player that he cannot raise any more models into combat as the rear is engaged, he's being a gamey git, not playing in the spirit of the game. But if he then brings another unit along, and plonks them 1" from the enemy as in the right side of the diagram, and tells his opponent that he cannot raise- then he's being nice and fair about it. And then if that second unit charges in at a later point, suddenly raising to the rear and shoving both units back is fair play and in the spirit of the game... riiiiight...

nosferatu1001
27-02-2009, 16:04
If youc annot move in combat, then barring an armybook overrule - you cannot move in CC, except to shuffle forwards.

If you have been rear and front charged, then sorry, you've been outplayed. You can no longer raise nto that unit - so tough. Now use tactics elsewhere.

Stopping spells from being as effective without using dispel dice is fairly standard - by your standard of "gamey" hiding someone from a cannon shot is gamey as you should only be able to stop it with ward saves.

Magic is 1 of 4 phases, and you are free to nullify it in any phase you can - no one phase has primacy in this (although obviouisly one phase makes it easier to...)

EldarBishop
27-02-2009, 17:00
I never said that you could do either of those by RAW...

Can't say that I spam IoN (only played one VC game since the new armybook, and I tend not to be too reliant on magic). Nor can I say I've ever been in a situation where this has occurred on either side of the argument.

I said that in the spirit of the game:
- I'd probably allow the VC player to raise...
- I'd probably allow the blocked in DE Assassin out...

theunwantedbeing
27-02-2009, 17:04
I said that in the spirit of the game:
- I'd probably allow the VC player to raise...
- I'd probably allow the blocked in DE Assassin out...

Your own idea of the spirit of the game.
Clearly other people have different opinions on what constitutes as in the spirit of the game.

Needless to say, going off the rules both of the above things you would "allow" are infact illegal.

Coram_Boy
27-02-2009, 17:13
can we all stop saying 'in the spirit of the game' it makes all of us sound like 5 year olds, please? Also, stop trolling both sides - it really isn't interesting, and I don't see what you're getting by being needlessly snide about things. How about emailing the GW rules person to see what he thinks? It's better than trying to put each other down.

Asmodiseus
27-02-2009, 17:56
can we all stop saying 'in the spirit of the game' it makes all of us sound like 5 year olds, please? Also, stop trolling both sides - it really isn't interesting, and I don't see what you're getting by being needlessly snide about things. How about emailing the GW rules person to see what he thinks? It's better than trying to put each other down.

But simply emailing the GW rules guru isnt "In the spirit of the rules forum", everyone knows that.

MalusCalibur
27-02-2009, 18:09
Firstly, I'd like to say that the discussion here seems to have descended into condescension and insults rather fast :S

Secondly, as far as the letter of the rules go, I don't really have a standpoint that is 100% either way. However, from a fluff PoV it seems a little strange that Undead units engaged in the rear can no longer have new models summoned into them at all.
My solution would be to simply place the models at the 'back' of the unit, considering the 'front' to be the engaged rank, and thus the actual front of the unit becomes the 'back'.
If, however, an Undead unit is surrounded on all four sides, then no raising should be permitted: there is literally nowhere the models could go, and to be fair if that situation arises the surrounded unit is most likely doomed, raising or not.
Enemy units should not be moved if in close combat: however, at the same time I do not believe this completely prevents VC from summong models into the unit.

Also, any comments about the 'brokenness' of VC should be left out of the discussion: personal vendettas against the army should not affect a debate about a rule.


MalusCalibur

markoman
27-02-2009, 18:13
Why not just move the zombie/skellie/Grave Guard/whatever unit forward and leave your opponent's unit in place? This seems to make sence both practically as well as 'logically'.

In this way you don't tamper with the positioning of your opponent's unit and you are still able to raise your troops. I personally would never disallow my opponent to raise troops to their unit in ANY situation.

As for some of the extreme cases that were given... christ, let them raise all they want. They will never raise more than you will kill/crumble through combat res if you have the unit surrounded.

markoman
27-02-2009, 18:16
Also, any comments about the 'brokenness' of VC should be left out of the discussion: personal vendettas against the army should not affect a debate about a rule.
MalusCalibur

I couldn't agree more.

I would like to add that I don't play VC's and I find them in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM to be broken... this is coming from a DoW player.

Dokushin
27-02-2009, 18:21
You'd put them in the front? You can't have a front rank that is a different size from the unit. Even if you're willing to steamroll past that, when do you straighten it up? What happens if it gets charged in the front? Where's the character in the front? Would you put them on the sides if they were charged in the front and rear?

If I have a magic missile, and there are no enemies in LOS, I can't cast it. What is being argued is like saying I can cast it, and then it automatically hits some other enemy unit, because it is in the "spirit of the game" for magic missiles to hit enemy units. This may come as a shocker, but there are situations in which spells simply will not work. Raise models at rear -> no space in rear -> can't raise models, cast elsewhere. It's no different than me wishing I could cast that fireball at the unit behind me. "But I can turn around! But I can hear them! But it's magic!" Garbage. Sometimes there are things you just can't do.

MalusCalibur
27-02-2009, 19:49
You'd put them in the front?

I believe that is what I said, yes.


You can't have a front rank that is a different size from the unit.

I never suggested that you should.


Even if you're willing to steamroll past that, when do you straighten it up? What happens if it gets charged in the front? Where's the character in the front? Would you put them on the sides if they were charged in the front and rear?

If I was placing new models at the front of the unit, I would move any characters or command so that they were always in the front rank. If the unit is engaged to the front and rear, then yes, newly raised models would be placed at the sides. You could place models at the sides to avoid having an incomplete or different numbered front rank. So long as the enemy unit is not moved, and the unit does not break formation rules, there should be no problem here.


If I have a magic missile, and there are no enemies in LOS, I can't cast it. What is being argued is like saying I can cast it, and then it automatically hits some other enemy unit, because it is in the "spirit of the game" for magic missiles to hit enemy units. This may come as a shocker, but there are situations in which spells simply will not work. Raise models at rear -> no space in rear -> can't raise models, cast elsewhere. It's no different than me wishing I could cast that fireball at the unit behind me. "But I can turn around! But I can hear them! But it's magic!" Garbage. Sometimes there are things you just can't do.

They are not the same at all. If a particular wizard cannot see a target for a magic missile, he cannot see it: there is no real debate about that, and he cannot cast the magic missile spell at them. However, a VC wizard trying to raise new troops would not be suddenly thwarted simply because the unit he is replenishing has been engaged at the back-the new bodies would simply rise up amongst the melee: after all, one could reasonably assume that the placing of newly summoned models at the back of a unit is a practicality ruling, and in background terms, the new bodies would be unlikely to always appear there.

As I said, if in the process of raising, you must simply avoid moving enemy units, or terrain pieces. By RaW, because the spell does state that new models should be placed at the back of a unit, then it is illegal to raise any if there isn't room. However, to me it does not seem like the most logical and rational way to resolve the issue.
And no, I do not play VC (yet).


MalusCalibur

g0ddy
27-02-2009, 21:27
The rules about raising are quite clear... You ignore any enemy models you are engaged with.. and raise as normal... If someone parks a enemy unit 1" behind you, you can not raise.. but if they charge you - raise as much as you want - I would assume you simply move the enemy unit back.

~ zilla

EvC
27-02-2009, 23:22
We really need to make a drinking game for rules discussions: every time someone says "the rules are clear", take a drink. If the rules actually are unclear (Which is usually the case if you're discussing rules), take two drinks. If the rules are clear in the other direction, drink the whole damn bottle! :D

SteelTitan
28-02-2009, 07:12
Haha! Very good idea. A lot has been said since the first page where i posted, and i cant be bothered reading all the going back and forth.

My personal opinion is to allow players to summon anyway IF the situation allows it and this doesnt present the opponent with a disadvantage (pushed off the board, having to push back more units behind, etc) This is not based on the rules perse, but on game play fun which im the biggest fan of. Ok, this leaves open a whole grey area, which wouldnt work in a tournament setting...but who ever said i go to tournaments :P
But even to the tournaments i went to, i was still very pro game fun instead of following the rule to the letter and would probably allow it, taking into account the above.

Neckutter
28-02-2009, 09:23
when more models are raised, they are raised to the rear first(except for the champ), and you just move the rear enemies back to make room. shifting in combat happens all the time. sometimes weird things happen when units engage, this is outlined in the FAQ #1 very last paragraph.

EvC
28-02-2009, 12:22
What? Shifting in combat should never happen, unless both players agree to it*. Units only move in combat to align, and that is only during the charge. As previously noted, the rulebook states clearly that once in combat units cannot move, except when you redress the ranks.

*if both players want to shift back a unit of undead to allow raising to happen, then that is of course totally fine.

Asmodiseus
28-02-2009, 12:46
when more models are raised, they are raised to the rear first(except for the champ), and you just move the rear enemies back to make room. shifting in combat happens all the time. sometimes weird things happen when units engage, this is outlined in the FAQ #1 very last paragraph.

I dont really think this is what they had in mind, but I dont think having one enemy in the rear of your unit stopping it from raising is what they had in mind for IoN either.

Its also important to know that alot of the people that post on the rules forums here (Myself included) are in the minority of players out there. A lot of times when discussing rules on this forum, we do, and indeed must go into very minute detail when breaking down rules. In reality most people just want to have a fun game and as I said at the very start. I have yet to play in one game (Over about 30 in 7th edition so far, and over 100 in 6th edition in which raising in combat had the same mechanic) in which the player was very anal about slightly shifting models so I can raise. That doesnt mean it wont happen, and it doesnt mean that person is wrong, just that they prefer to play with a strict adherence to the book. If you are playing someone like this then you have every right to scrutinize every move they make to ensure that they are following the rules as well. And at the end of the game you have to take a summary of how the game went and decide if this is someone you would wish to play again.

Urgat
28-02-2009, 13:49
We really need to make a drinking game for rules discussions: every time someone says "the rules are clear", take a drink. If the rules actually are unclear (Which is usually the case if you're discussing rules), take two drinks. If the rules are clear in the other direction, drink the whole damn bottle! :D

That would certainly make the forums quieter after a while :p


What? Shifting in combat should never happen, unless both players agree to it*.
That's what of my pet peeves. All the people I've played seemed to believe shifting is something in the rules.

Neckutter
28-02-2009, 16:26
shifting in combat should always happen.
in the example of charging a unit of zombies from the front and the rear. the zombies are gonna lose badly. lets say the zombies lose 10 models from combat AND from combat res. this means that either the rear charger, or the front charger will no longer be in HtH. thus, it is up to the players to decide to move up the rear chargers to stay into close combat.

also lets take an example when a unit of 5 cavalry is already fighting to the front. it then gets charged in the flank by lets say a chariot. the chariot kills 2 models, but the knights dont break from combat. this also presents a case of where one of the units will be out of base contact with each other, but it is obvious that the fight should be ongoing. in this case the chariot would move up so that it continues to be in combat with the knights in their flank.

again; the last page in the Faq #1 speaks about this on the last page. there are times when you have awkward things happen, and you need to be generous and work together in the spirit of the game.

and lastly, for the record, i am absolutely opposed to the whole "clip and slide" thing that some idiot judge at LA gamesday made up.

SteelTitan
28-02-2009, 17:37
You mean that when you clip you move the entire unit against the other instead of only the clipping model?

I have to agree. It makes no sense as this effectively let you charge a lot further and is easily abused i think.

Neckutter
28-02-2009, 17:45
You mean that when you clip you move the entire unit against the other instead of only the clipping model?

I have to agree. It makes no sense as this effectively let you charge a lot further and is easily abused i think.

appearantly in an LA games day tourney, a judge ruled that this charge happens:
supposing X=unit of 25mm infantry, and C is a unit of cavalry, underscores should be ignored. they are just place holders.


_______XXXXX



CCCCCC

1)announce charge.

______XXXXX
CCCCCC

2) contact made, with no distance left to wheel for maximization

______XXXXX
_____CCCCCC

3) slide charging unit to the side to maximize combat.


i hope the above diagrams made sense.

SteelTitan
28-02-2009, 19:36
yeah exactly, thats what i meant too...read it in an errata last week...

i think thats rediculous...ok, game play wise it might be nice because you can not abuse clipping by avoiding characters in units but movement/redeployment is difficult as it is in fantasy with large blocks so if you manage to avoid a character like that it shouldnt be nerfed this way...

What if the unit below tried hard to get away from the unit above...it almost worked and then this new stupid rule comes in and he's screwed anyway...

ScalySkin
28-02-2009, 19:56
This whole thread is giving me a headache!

Atrahasis
01-03-2009, 09:07
shifting in combat should always happen.
in the example of charging a unit of zombies from the front and the rear. the zombies are gonna lose badly. lets say the zombies lose 10 models from combat AND from combat res. this means that either the rear charger, or the front charger will no longer be in HtH. thus, it is up to the players to decide to move up the rear chargers to stay into close combat.

also lets take an example when a unit of 5 cavalry is already fighting to the front. it then gets charged in the flank by lets say a chariot. the chariot kills 2 models, but the knights dont break from combat. this also presents a case of where one of the units will be out of base contact with each other, but it is obvious that the fight should be ongoing. in this case the chariot would move up so that it continues to be in combat with the knights in their flank.

These two examples are both covered by redressing ranks.

Invocation is not.

Neckutter
01-03-2009, 09:10
would you and i like to compare real in-game situations NOT covered by the rules?

i was giving examples of how shifting units to keep the game tidy happens all the time.
:)

Dokushin
01-03-2009, 17:37
would you and i like to compare real in-game situations NOT covered by the rules?

i was giving examples of how shifting units to keep the game tidy happens all the time.
:)

Right, but I think the point was, your example is specifically covered in the rulebook as an exception to a general rule, and there is no exception for Invocation. Therefore, you can't just assume you're allowed to move the other player's unit around whenever you feel like it.

I think it makes perfect sense for an enemy at the rear of the unit to keep it from raising. The unit has a facing, which implies a travel. New models are not going to be raised in front of the unit; obviously they're going to be raised behind it. Models in the process of being raised are probably very easy to put down, probably no more difficult than stepping on them. Therefore, a unit that is following -- behind -- an undead unit would be on top of the corpses that are raising up as the unit passes, and easily taken care of by the simple fact of the other unit following.

Not that a fluff justification is necessary. The rules say that with specific exceptions you do not move units in combat. Invocation is not one of those exceptions. Breaking whole chapters worth of formation rules by moving enemy units or (worse) putting incomplete ranks up front or to the sides is not a clever end-run, it's just illegal.

Sifal
01-03-2009, 18:41
The rules say that with specific exceptions you do not move units in combat. Invocation is not one of those exceptions.

I would suggest there is a chance that Invocation is meant to be one of these exceptions by RAI even though it is not specifically written down.

EvC
01-03-2009, 21:22
Entirely possible Sifal, I agree. But if you want to start playing by intent, that opens up a whole can of worms. For example, if we had the case of a unit of Fell Bats in combat to the front and rear, and nowhere to raise, I'd happily let the opponent raise the models and shift the unit back if we play by the "obvious intent" that Fell Bats are only supposed to get 1 wound back from Invocations, and not D6. It goes both ways ;)

Caine Mangakahia
01-03-2009, 22:17
Why cant you summon models to the same place you remove casualties? The principal is loosly the same, in combat you remove casualties from the rear, but when engaged in the rear models are removed from the front rank instead (which is now effectivly the rear as far as actual combat, rank bonuses notwithstanding). Why wouldn't raised models go to the same place as the casualties? They are basically just standing back up.

Sifal
01-03-2009, 23:15
Entirely possible Sifal, I agree. But if you want to start playing by intent, that opens up a whole can of worms. For example, if we had the case of a unit of Fell Bats in combat to the front and rear, and nowhere to raise, I'd happily let the opponent raise the models and shift the unit back if we play by the "obvious intent" that Fell Bats are only supposed to get 1 wound back from Invocations, and not D6. It goes both ways ;)

I'm not even saying GW did mean to allow raising while engaged in the rear by RAI, I really don't know which side of the argument i agree with more. I don't understand the bit about fell bats? surely they'd only ever gain a single wound from invocation as the spell says, 'non-infantry...[ ]... only ever gain a single wound'. Fell bats have a the 'Flying unit' special rule....

EvC
01-03-2009, 23:23
It's just a reference to what happens once you start placing intent above what it actually says. Fell Bats for example get D6 wounds back because they are technically infantry (There's nothing that means a unit can't be infantry and a flyer), even though you might suggest that they're not really infantry, like you guessed ;)

Sifal
01-03-2009, 23:30
It's just a reference to what happens once you start placing intent above what it actually says. Fell Bats for example get D6 wounds back because they are technically infantry (There's nothing that means a unit can't be infantry and a flyer), even though you might suggest that they're not really infantry, like you guessed ;)

ah i get you. Yeah, my pointing out that invocation might be one of the exceptions by RAI for moving a unit in combat desn't make it true. There are reasonable arguments in both directions, this needs faq. I play VC and if this comes up I will let my opponent decide which way to play it or roll a D6.

Caine Mangakahia
02-03-2009, 05:38
It's just a reference to what happens once you start placing intent above what it actually says. Fell Bats for example get D6 wounds back because they are technically infantry (There's nothing that means a unit can't be infantry and a flyer), even though you might suggest that they're not really infantry, like you guessed ;)

The only reason they're considered infantry is because they appear clearly in the infantry section in the back of the vc army book. Otherwise I wouldn't call them infantry either :)

FredNo.1
02-03-2009, 06:36
a vc player can summon his undead if engaged in the rear, the units are shifted to make room.

as for some of the incredible examples in this thread. what if u have enough units so that they fill up the entire battlefield thus ur last couple of units cant even be placed because of deployment zone?

these examples have nothing to do with warhammer, the rules were never intended for so little room. if it does happen fix it in a manner that is acceptable for both players.

in 99% of all examples there is plenty of room to shift the units and so the summoning happens.

if u think vc is OP fine, but do not try and cheat because of it.

nosferatu1001
02-03-2009, 07:16
Wow, strong worded language there Fred (surprise)

Given you feel it is "cheating" to follow the rules (no movement in CC escept specifically allowed ones like redress ranks) could you please provide specific rules that support your position?

Otherwise it could be argued you were the one that was cheating, were you to raise into the unit engaged to the rear

SteelTitan
02-03-2009, 07:26
Will this be addressed in a faq you reckon because this discussion is getting old...after 4 pages of not agreeing.

Neckutter
02-03-2009, 07:46
if you were heavy-handed, and didnt let the VC player do this in a tournament, what would you think his reaction would be, when it came to soft scores?

since generosity is out of the question, i guess you haveta think about the consequences.

Atrahasis
02-03-2009, 08:10
the principal is loosly the same, in combat you remove casualties from the rear, but when engaged in the rear models are removed from the front rank instead No, you don't. Casualties are removed from the rear, regardless of how they are suffered.

Atrahasis
02-03-2009, 08:11
if you were heavy-handed, and didnt let the VC player do this in a tournament, what would you think his reaction would be, when it came to soft scores?
That's an argument against soft scores, not an argument for raising into combat.

If the scoring system at the tournament is structured so that a player can bully his opponent into playing by a rule he's just made up, then the tournament is flawed.

Neckutter
02-03-2009, 08:19
my point was "win the battle, lose the war" since there is no solution to the problem.

Atrahasis
02-03-2009, 08:23
The solution to the problem is for the VC player to accept that he cannot raise according to the rules, and for a referee to tell him so.

Neckutter
02-03-2009, 08:43
you're so funny.
quote me the rule that says VC players cant raise models back? IoN simply says that these models are added to the rear. there is nothing stopping IoN from pushing the rear unit back further.

Atrahasis
02-03-2009, 08:44
Yes there is - units in combat CANNOT MOVE. Since no exception is given for Invocation, enemy units cannot be moved for that purpose.

FredNo.1
02-03-2009, 08:46
yeah to use the word cheating really is strong language but in this case i feel that is fitting.

Can u move units outside the movement phase if u look at the rules? nope

but if u cast a spell yeah u can, the rules cannot be used stand alone. But together, hence rules contradict eachother but in cases like these its really easy to see what applies, because one rule is added upon another.

u claim that nah u cant move in the magic phase with ur spell, only in the movement phase, then i call it what it is: cheating.

its the same with invocation of n. yeah normally u cannot add troops like this, and in midcombat shuffling troops around to fit them in. but here u can np.

to claim otherwise is breaking the rules.

do i think VC magic is OP? hell yes

do i want them to be toned down? yes

will i cheat in any way or form vs them? never

Neckutter
02-03-2009, 08:48
Yes there is - units in combat CANNOT MOVE. Since no exception is given for Invocation, enemy units cannot be moved for that purpose.

P32. "units engaged in close combat cannot declare charges, move, or shoot missle weapons."

EDIT: having IoN "push" you back isnt the unit voluntarily moving. the above passage that talks about it moving i would say that it means: "the controller cant make the unit move".

EvC
02-03-2009, 10:11
It really says something when someone posts a quote that instantly demolishes his entire argument, and then argues that that quote is actually saying the complete opposite of what it really says :D

To be honest I think FredNo.1's argument is probably the strongest in favour of allowing the models to be shifted backwards: the rules say you can't move models in combat, invocation says the models are raised, thus there's a conflict and army book trumps rulebook, but only by inference, that the models must be raised, and that can only be done by shifting the units in combat. There's no general rule saying if there is no room to raise the models then they aren't raised.

Incidentally I was once playing a game where a unit of my Black Knights was shot down to three models, and next turn I moved the unit into a gap between two other units, and tried to re-raise a Knight. There was no place to put the Knight in the front rank (which must be done until 5 models wide), so when I placed the model in a second rank my opponent told me I could not do that (but let me cast the spell elsewhere). Should I have just ignored the rule and placed the model in the second rank anyway?

Atrahasis
02-03-2009, 10:14
To be honest I think FredNo.1's argument is probably the strongest in favour of allowing the models to be shifted backwards: the rules say you can't move models in combat, invocation says the models are raised, thus there's a conflict and army book trumps rulebook, but only by inference, that the models must be raised, and that can only be done by shifting the units in combat. There's no general rule saying if there is no room to raise the models then they aren't raised.
By that logic, my Empire troops can wlk into combat without charging because they have a M of 4 and army book trumps rulebook.

Army book does not trump rulebook. All rules are equal, regardless of where they are printed. Rules trump other rules if and only if they say so.

Urgat
02-03-2009, 10:37
By that logic, my Empire troops can wlk into combat without charging because they have a M of 4 and army book trumps rulebook.
The rulebook says you cannot do that, and nowhere in the empire armybook it says you can. A M value doesn't have anything to do with engaging units, does it? Don't claim "by that logic" when there's no logic involved in your counter-exemple :/

EVC's exemple is as good as any to illustrate the problem, and it's pretty obvious nobody has the answer to that.
I can't imagine that the issue hasn't been raised (haha) before, so what were the previous opinions on the matter?

Nuada
02-03-2009, 11:13
units in combat CANNOT MOVE.

Apart from turn, or a change formation to increase the number of models in the front rank by up to another five models




However, with the example given, the undead unit wouldn't be able to change formation because he is enagaed on more than one side. It is an example of a unit moving in combat though

Atrahasis
02-03-2009, 11:29
The rulebook says you cannot do that, and nowhere in the empire armybook it says you can. A M value doesn't have anything to do with engaging units, does it? Don't claim "by that logic" when there's no logic involved in your counter-exemple :/

EVC's exemple is as good as any to illustrate the problem, and it's pretty obvious nobody has the answer to that.
I can't imagine that the issue hasn't been raised (haha) before, so what were the previous opinions on the matter?
I'm aware my counter example is ludicrous.

EVC's example is no less ludicrous because it is based on the false premise that army books trump rulebooks. They do not.

Atrahasis
02-03-2009, 11:30
Apart from turn, or a change formation to increase the number of models in the front rank by up to another five models




However, with the example given, the undead unit wouldn't be able to change formation because he is enagaed on more than one side
We all know that redress ranks and free manoeuvres are an exception to the prohibition on movement in combat. They're irrelevant to the discussion.

EvC
02-03-2009, 11:54
By that logic, my Empire troops can wlk into combat without charging because they have a M of 4 and army book trumps rulebook.

Army book does not trump rulebook. All rules are equal, regardless of where they are printed. Rules trump other rules if and only if they say so.

Yeah, I know. When I said "army book trumps rulebook" I meant where the army book provides a rule that trumps the main rulebook because it tells us to do so; as I stated, there is no real guidance to do so in the case of invication to the rear, but players could infer that a statement of "put the models in the rear rank" contains an unwritten allowance to override the usual "no movement in combat" rule, because to follow the instructions would necessitate such movement at that time. Yeah, inference, unwritten allowances- I didn't say it was a good argument, did I? ;)

nosferatu1001
02-03-2009, 12:09
Instead of army book trumps rule book it is more specific trumps general

General rule: dead models dont get back up
IoN: allows you to make dead models get back up [or add new ones, etc]

General Rule: you cannot move in combat except for...[redress etc]
IoN: no specific rule overriding this as you are told to raise and where you can place; you are not given permision to override CC restrictions on movement.

IoN does not override the "no movement" rule for combat, and unlike preFAQ "can it be cast into combat" there is nothing in the spells text which indicates the intention of the designers. As such those arguing intent are being mind readers - you can "fluff" an argument either way, and i don't recall a situation occuring where teh studio had this example (altho could easily be wrong)

Therefore - to Fredno1; calling it cheating is excessive, as you cannot show where IoN actually lets you do what you want to do, whereas there are many BRB rules which show you cannot. Permissive ruleset and all, you only have "intent" to go on whereas "no raising" has actual rules.

[as a personal note - please drop the text speech; this is a forum, not IM]

Sifal
02-03-2009, 12:35
Again I'll tentatively use the words - 'I would suggest' that the BRB rule that says units in CC cannot be moved is a term GW did not think about very hard but is there to stop people just moving their own units out of combat etc and other illegal voluntary moves.

I would suggest that GW did not write this to mean 'units may never be physically moved on the gaming table if they are in combat' but rather to mean 'units in CC may not move as per moves made in movement phase'.
I think the Invocation problem is an oversight by GW and we really can't know what they intended with the rules. SO.... this means we need an FAQ on the subject. In the mean time I think it would be wrong of anyone, during a game, to ague 100% on either side of the ruling seeing as no-one can be sure of the RAI meaning of the 'units in CC cannot move' or the RAI meaning of 'raised models are placed at the back of the unit'. Both sides of the argument can be justified by RAW interpretations, hence it is a GW mistake and not the fault of any persons on this forum for not 'getting it'.
Therefore I think a D6 should be rolled by the players as it is the fairest way of sorting it in the short term.

Dokushin
02-03-2009, 13:05
That's one heck of a slippery slope.

If GW 'intended' something, they'll let us know. If it takes a long time, that's their prerogative. If you play the game based on your individual interpretation of what GW was 'thinking' when they wrote the rules, you're not playing Warhammer, you're reading tarot.

Are any of you seriously suggesting you could make a 1-wide unit of Zombies and use it to push enemy models all over the field? Think about it for a second. It's ridiculous. Since it's a) ridiculous, b) specifically disallowed by the rules, c) not specifically allowed by any rule, and d) requires arguing about the ephemeral 'intentions' of GW to even suggest, it's obviously illegal.

It is cheating and an abuse of the rules to use Invocation to move enemy units around. If you want someone to cry for you because you can't bulk up a unit that got rear charged I'll go chop an onion, but I swear that the next time I hear about this I'm going to completely swap sides on the Salamander debate and start marching and shooting every turn, since I'm apparently in the company of people who think that when Mom said don't get in the cookie jar, it's ok to get Tommy to get me cookies out of it.

Asmodiseus
02-03-2009, 13:06
Ok here is a rule quote for you, straight out of the BRB

Page 3 of the BRB reads

"Remember your playing to enjoy a challenging battle with friends, where having fun and keeping the spirit of the game is more important than winning at any cost."

Before anyone posts the obligatory "Oh that means I can do <Insert crazy action that violates 20 basic rules here> and argue its "in the spirit of the game", let me say that the fact that this argument has gone on for four pages proves that this is not a clear cut violation of the rules but more of a "Normally this cant happen, but is this may be a special circumstance where it can" situation.

the purpose of IoN is to raise troops. They stated that you must put models in the back rank to keep idiot rules lawyers from either placing models in the front and getting free movement out of it, or placing them on the sides expanding frontage, making instant screens etc. Now we have rules lawyers taking it to the other extreme and trying to deny the vampire player the use of his main spell when he has no intention of trying to use it to cheat the system.

Saying "Oh my unit attacked you in the rear, so you cant raise" is in violation of the rule on page 3 so if you try it you are in fact a CHEATER

Atrahasis
02-03-2009, 13:11
the length of the debate proves nothing except that some people are stubborn...

Nuada
02-03-2009, 13:12
you could make a 1-wide unit of Zombies and use it to push enemy models all over the field?.

Raise Dead and Invocation of Nehek both say that you have to have your unit at least 5 wide before you can add to the rear ranks

Atrahasis
02-03-2009, 13:13
Unless the unit already has more than one rank.

Create unit 5 wide, turn it 90 degrees, you now have a 1-wide unit that can raise into the rear.

Nuada
02-03-2009, 13:22
yes, but you'd still have to put newly raised models from nehek into the front to make it 5 wide, before adding to the rear. Even if you turn 90 degrees. .......But this is irrelevant to the discussion

Atrahasis
02-03-2009, 13:26
No, you wouldn't. You CANNOT add to the front if there is already more than one rank.

It is entirely relevant, as it highlights the abuses possible if raising models is allowed to move enemy units.

EvC
02-03-2009, 13:39
Saying "Oh my unit attacked you in the rear, so you cant raise" is in violation of the rule on page 3 so if you try it you are in fact a CHEATER

And if a VC player raises a new unit of 5 Zombies behind an enemy unit that is about to lose combat, and placed it so the fleeing models will just clip the Zombies and all die as a result, is he "cheating" for using smart tactics to get his models behind enemy lines and mess them up? No, he's just using smart tactics, getting his models behind enemy lines, and destroying them. Quite why to do such a thing to a Vampire Counts player is the end of the world I haven't worked out yet. I would congratulate an opponent doing the same to my own troops, for outplaying me. Oh, sorry, I forgot, the "friendly" thing to do, in the "spirit of the game", would be to whine at him and shout CHEATER until he lets me raise my troops back up so I can take my rightful place as Lord of the Warhammer. Ok...

nosferatu1001
02-03-2009, 14:06
Saying "Oh my unit attacked you in the rear, so you cant raise" is in violation of the rule on page 3 so if you try it you are in fact a CHEATER

Fine, I;'ll march and shoot my salamanders - after all, shooting is the main use of my salamanders, so if i march i shouldnt be denied shooting - especially as my rules dont say i cant shoot!

"Quite clearly", if you have been outplayed instead of whiniing and calling someone a cheater until you get your way, you should accept gracefully that you got outplayed.

Nuada
02-03-2009, 14:09
No, you wouldn't. You CANNOT add to the front if there is already more than one rank.

Yes it does say "if the unit already has more than one rank, you have to place new models in the rear", but does this mean you have to be 5-wide to have a rank? or is a rank one model wide with these rules?


Please try and keep it civil, there's been alot of discussions banned lately. I'm sure you're able to do this :) thank you

Atrahasis
02-03-2009, 14:17
Yes it does say "if the unit already has more than one rank, you have to place new models in the rear", but does this mean you have to be 5-wide to have a rank? or is a rank one model wide with these rules?You've answered your own question.

You have to place the models in the rear if the unit has more than one rank.

Ranks are 1 or more models wide. 5-wide indicates that a rank is valid for combat resolution bonus, but a unit of 16 models 4 wide and 4 deep has four ranks.

Urgat
02-03-2009, 17:11
Yes it does say "if the unit already has more than one rank, you have to place new models in the rear", but does this mean you have to be 5-wide to have a rank? or is a rank one model wide with these rules?


Please try and keep it civil, there's been alot of discussions banned lately. I'm sure you're able to do this :) thank you

As Atrahasis pointed out, you're mixing ranks and rank bonus. One mini behind another one does constitute a rank, if a bolt thrower shoots at them, it'll shoot though both minis. It's just that a 1 wide rank gives no static CR.
So the 1 wide trick to move units around, while very silly (it goes up there with the fanatic slingshot if you ask me), would be feasible if you allow units moved by the IoN.
I'd bitchslap anybody trying that, though, and I'm sure everybody would too.

Nuada
02-03-2009, 17:34
Yeah i was just double checking, it seems daft to me. One model standing on his own is one rank and one file.

So if you have 2 models in a unit behind each other like this;

x
x

That's 2 ranks, so RAW all your raised invocation figures now appear in a huge conga line. Seems wrong to me, but there you go. I think it's another case of careless rule writing, but that's how it's written.

FredNo.1
03-03-2009, 09:09
It really says something when someone posts a quote that instantly demolishes his entire argument, and then argues that that quote is actually saying the complete opposite of what it really says :D

To be honest I think FredNo.1's argument is probably the strongest in favour of allowing the models to be shifted backwards: the rules say you can't move models in combat, invocation says the models are raised, thus there's a conflict and army book trumps rulebook, but only by inference, that the models must be raised, and that can only be done by shifting the units in combat. There's no general rule saying if there is no room to raise the models then they aren't raised.



this is correct.

and athrahasis, as for army book rules not overriding the general rules, ofc they do.

the army books are packed with it

Atrahasis
03-03-2009, 09:28
and athrahasis, as for army book rules not overriding the general rules, ofc they do.

the army books are packed with it
Please, name one.

EldarBishop
03-03-2009, 12:37
Armybook rules have to override basic rule set. They serve to modify the existing rules for the purposes of fielding "whatever" specific army. If they didn't modify the basic rules set, then we all might as well toss them out and just use the basic rules.

There's nothing in the basic rules about bring dead model back to life.

Bretonnian armybook modifications (just of the top of my head, I'm sure there are more):
- must take an extra character [BSB] (pretty sure the FOC allowance is in the BRB)
- using the Ld of any knight within 6"
- Peasants do not cause panic to knightly units
- Peasant standards do not count for VP purposes

then there's the Lance formation
- gives rank bonuses at 3 models wide (instead of 5)
- Damsels going in the centre position of a lance (not in the front rank)
- Other characters/command models may be placed not in the front rank as well (if there are too many of them)
- Models on the sides of the lance can attack during the charge (even though they are not in B2B contact)

Atrahasis
03-03-2009, 12:43
None of those are examples of the army book "trumping" the rulebook - they are all specific exceptions identified as such; there is no conflict.

Where an army book and the rule book conflict and neither has stronger wording, it is a direct conflict and no trumping takes place.

Asmodiseus
03-03-2009, 16:08
Examples of Army book trumping rules book:

1. Chaos Players being allowed to re-roll a dice that has already been re-rolled on the eye of the gods chart

2. A Chaos wizard with the book of secrets being able to choose the same spell twice.

3. A Dark Elf with the PoK rolling a 1 for his ward save and not failing

I can go on if you like Atrahasis

EvC
03-03-2009, 16:28
It's pretty telling that none of those cases were considered clear-cut and required an FAQ [thereby granting the exception to the rule], however. Come up with one that was a straight-up example of an army book having one rule and the main rulebook, and then we'll talk ;)

nosferatu1001
03-03-2009, 16:33
Atrahasis - surely the rank bonus (3, not 5) is the Armybook trumping the rule book? Rulebook defines 5, armybook 3 == armybook wins.

They are in conflict, but the armybook is more specific and so wins.

Atrahasis
03-03-2009, 16:56
Atrahasis - surely the rank bonus (3, not 5) is the Armybook trumping the rule book? Rulebook defines 5, armybook 3 == armybook wins.

They are in conflict, but the armybook is more specific and so wins.The army book specifically says it is an exception, so it isn't "trumping" in that sense.

It's an example of a specific exception trumping a rule, rather than the army book trumping the rulebook per se.

Asmodiseus
03-03-2009, 18:52
LoL so basicly we arnt allowed to list any instances of armybook rules that contradict BRB rules if the instance of contradiction is a specific rule listed in the army book

We also cant list any instances if they are "Grey Areas" that are covered in FAQs, regardless if the FAQ instructs us to play the rule in direct contradiction to the BRB rule.

So I guess I am confused as to what you are asking. From what I can tell you are asking us to provide you with an instance of an army book over riding the BRB when it is not a grey area, and when it doesn't specifically state that it does in the army book itself??

Malorian
03-03-2009, 19:11
This is the way I see this one:

If a unit charges another in the rear what happens when it kills off ranks (assuming it doesn't run)? Usually what I see players do is remove the dead models from the unit and shift the charging unit up.

Well if the charging unit can move up, then why can it not also move back?


I have played against people that won't let me raise models, saying there is no room, and these people tend to also be jerks. In these cases I curse myself for getting rear charged in the first place and then simply not play that person with my VC again. (Although I'll happily smash them with my brets ;) )

Dokushin
03-03-2009, 19:35
LoL so basicly we arnt allowed to list any instances of armybook rules that contradict BRB rules if the instance of contradiction is a specific rule listed in the army book

We also cant list any instances if they are "Grey Areas" that are covered in FAQs, regardless if the FAQ instructs us to play the rule in direct contradiction to the BRB rule.

So I guess I am confused as to what you are asking. From what I can tell you are asking us to provide you with an instance of an army book over riding the BRB when it is not a grey area, and when it doesn't specifically state that it does in the army book itself??

Well, yeah, since that's what is being argued about Invocation. The lot of you are saying that since it says raise in the back, then all of the rules in the BRB cease to apply and you do whatever it takes no matter what to put new models in the back. He's asking for another example like that, and there isn't one, because the game doesn't work like that.


This is the way I see this one:

If a unit charges another in the rear what happens when it kills off ranks (assuming it doesn't run)? Usually what I see players do is remove the dead models from the unit and shift the charging unit up.

Well if the charging unit can move up, then why can it not also move back?


I have played against people that won't let me raise models, saying there is no room, and these people tend to also be jerks. In these cases I curse myself for getting rear charged in the first place and then simply not play that person with my VC again. (Although I'll happily smash them with my brets ;) )

Moving up is specifically addressed in the army book. It's also sensible. The unit getting magically pushed back because some skeletons appeared does not make sense ("We'd better make room for these new enemies, everyone fall back") and is not addressed anywhere.

I've stayed silent when VC players shift my unit back to make room for new models. I've also stayed silent when O&G fudged the direction on his fanatics a bit to avoid his own units. Both are cheating. It's not being a jerk to want to play by the rules. This is, and I repeat, no different from the Salamander march and shoot issue. How would you feel if people acted like you were being unreasonable if you didn't let them march and shoot with their salamanders?

I take offense that prevailing opinion is it's unreasonable to not let VC players take a spell that is already universally hailed as completely overpowered and do something that is against any interpretation of the rules, and against any precedent. The most powerful spell in the game does not need to be more powerful -- especially not through the inventing of rules that do not exist.

Malorian
03-03-2009, 20:39
Moving up is specifically addressed in the army book. It's also sensible. The unit getting magically pushed back because some skeletons appeared does not make sense ("We'd better make room for these new enemies, everyone fall back") and is not addressed anywhere.

Personally, if we are talking about "making sense", I would think that moving back is much more preferable to having them come up all around you. :p

So in game terms, if it makes more sense, I could simply place my models around and then behind yours :evilgrin:

EvC
03-03-2009, 21:13
Good thing that he's not using the "makes sense" argument as the prime argument then. It would almost be as bad as your "jerk" argument... almost, but not quite ;)


...and against any precedent.

Actually that's the thing- the precedent in previous editions was to allow the units to be shifted back. That's why it is so familiar to so many people, that the attackers should kindly step back to make room.

Dokushin
03-03-2009, 21:43
Actually that's the thing- the precedent in previous editions was to allow the units to be shifted back. That's why it is so familiar to so many people, that the attackers should kindly step back to make room.

Ahh, that would explain much of the confusion. Glad the game is moving on. Or trying to, anyway :D

Nurgling Chieftain
03-03-2009, 21:54
We also cant list any instances if they are "Grey Areas" that are covered in FAQs, regardless if the FAQ instructs us to play the rule in direct contradiction to the BRB rule.
...
From what I can tell you are asking us to provide you with an instance of an army book over riding the BRB when it is not a grey area, and when it doesn't specifically state that it does in the army book itself??Right, it's a catch 22: anything that would meet the standards would by that definition already be considered a grey area.

However, if every so-called "grey area" is resolved in favor of "army book > BRB", that's pretty strong level of precedent. So, given multiple examples of that, let's pose the question back: where are the examples of the BRB trumping and overriding subsequent army books?


He's asking for another example like that, and there isn't one, because the game doesn't work like that.You were given several, and apparently discarded them on the sole principle that they appeared in FAQ's. Pretty weak counter, IMO.

EvC
03-03-2009, 22:23
You simply fail (refuse, more like) to understand, nurgling chieftain. If it met the standards, and the army book trumped the main rulebook, then that would prove that the army book indeed trumps the rulebook (That's a tautology, by the way). So far every example has not been valid because they refer to cases where the army book says that instead of the usual rules, their rule applies. The reason the "grey areas" fail, is because in those cases the rules are being cleared up to tell us that this should be an exception to the main rule. Sometimes they tell us in fact that the main rules still stand, however.

The basic claim is that where army book rule "ABX" implies a solution that must break main rulebook rule "RBY", then RBY must be broken. If that is how it always goes, then you should be able to just point one out nicely. But I don't think it's that simple.

Here's a good counterexample for you: the miscast result double 1 states that the unfortuante wizard is instantly killed and may not be saved by any means. However, there are certain magic items that allow you to save the model's life when he is killed, such as the von Carstein Ring. So which rule trumps the other, is it the main rulebook, or the army book? In this case, the main rulebook wins out, although we may have thought that the Ring's rules in the VC army book trumped the rulebook.

Nurgling Chieftain
04-03-2009, 02:39
You simply fail (refuse, more like) to understand, nurgling chieftain.Convince me, then, that there is some - any - standard of evidence which is both possible and to which you'd agree.


So far every example has not been valid because they refer to cases where the army book says that instead of the usual rules, their rule applies.I agree that if the rule explicitly overrides another rule, then that is not an example of "implicit trumping" of any kind. I do not agree that that description covers every example so far.


The reason the "grey areas" fail, is because in those cases the rules are being cleared up to tell us that this should be an exception to the main rule.That is not a valid line of reasoning. An FAQ is evidence FOR it's own reasoning, not AGAINST it. If they meant that the rule was wrong, that's an errata. If the rule is correct and they're just re-iterating how it works, that's an FAQ. While it's true that some FAQ's have blurred into de facto errata's, I don't think that caveat applies very well here.


The basic claim is that where army book rule "ABX" implies a solution that must break main rulebook rule "RBY", then RBY must be broken. If that is how it always goes, then you should be able to just point one out nicely.Well, sure. The rules are positively littered with simple straight-forward examples which nobody ever questions. Main rulebook says riders can fight on, army book says they're dead, they're dead. Magic item says you get to save your power dice, rulebook says they go away at the end of the phase, you keep them. Weapon says you hit (or wound) automatically, rulebook says you roll, you hit (or wound) and don't roll. It's just how the game works. A special rule, ability, or effect in an army book which specifically states which rules it overrides and replaces is nice, but it's not universal and I don't even think it's strictly speaking the norm.


Here's a good counterexample for you: the miscast result double 1 states that the unfortuante wizard is instantly killed and may not be saved by any means.This example is invalid by both of your own standards. The rulebook rule tells you it overrides such abilities, and there's an FAQ.

Asmodiseus
04-03-2009, 03:15
Nurgling Chieften is completly correct.

EVC you are asking us to basicly pick a number between 1 and 10, then giving us the stimpulation that the number can not be greater than or equal to 5 or less than and equal to 5.

For the record I dont believe that there is an actual clear cut rule that army book trumps rulebook, but in grey areas that involve armybook/BRB contradictions the FAQs tend to usually go in favor of the Army book, so in borderline calls the probabilities would be much in your favor to play it as such.

And you keep bringing up the Salamander option like that is supposed to have any bearing. For the record if you wanted to march your salamander and shoot I would have no problem with that as it is in fact a grey area. But that is the difference between me and you I guess. I would rather play and have fun, while others would rather sit around disecting sentences and argueing that "It doesnt make sense that your yombies push my one guy back when they get raised". Thats what Nurgling meant by usually people like that are jerks (By people like that he meant anal rules lawyers which is one of two people who would deny VC the right to raise if engaged to the rear, the other would be WAAC players)

EvC
04-03-2009, 12:15
I haven't mentioned Salamanders in this thread at all! And I agree with what you say on that matter as well.

Nurgling Chieftain seems correct to you, but that is because he is saying what you want to hear, and you lack the objectivity to critically consider his words. For example:
"The rules are positively littered with simple straight-forward examples which nobody ever questions. [1]Main rulebook says riders can fight on, army book says they're dead, they're dead. [2]Magic item says you get to save your power dice, rulebook says they go away at the end of the phase, you keep them. [3]Weapon says you hit (or wound) automatically, rulebook says you roll, you hit (or wound) and don't roll. It's just how the game works. A special rule, ability, or effect in an army book which specifically states which rules it overrides and replaces is nice, but it's not universal and I don't even think it's strictly speaking the norm."
Each of these cases he mentions is wrong, and it says something about the quality of the argument that he has not checked his facts before posting them (Combined with the repeated ad hominems, the argument on your side is almost entirely intellectually empty). Look at them closely:
[1] No idea what this refers to, to be honest.
[2] I thought this was a good example, until I looked in the rulebook (Yeah I know- what a jerk that makes me!). Nowhere does it state magic dice are lost at the end of the phase, unless it's written somewhere really obscure. The closest thing to this is the miscast 8-9 result that states that dice stored in items are lost... so you tell me, does the army book that says you can store the dice trump the rulebook which says they can't after that miscast result? No, of course not.
[3] Magic weapons say to ignore the standard rules for that weapon, so if they ignore the need to roll to wound, then this is no contradiction. This is precisely what Atrahasis was talking about before.

So each of those cases, there's no contradiction between army book and rulebook. You follow the main rulebook, as usual, and when the army book tells you to do X instead of Y, you follow that rule. Where X and Y directly conflict, there's almost always some other rule or condition telling you how to deal with that situation.

Here's another example for you: the 6th edition Lizardmen standard Huanchi's Blessed Totem states that when it is used, the unit is immediately moved forwards D6". Now, if that standard is used when the unit is immediately behind impassable terrain, what happens? The army book is telling us, you move the unit D6". The main rulebook says, you can't enter impassable terrain. So does the army book "trump" the rulebook in this case? No, of course not! In spite of the magic being used, the unit doesn't get to ignore the main rule, be it about moving units in combat, or moving into impassable terrain. Or, if you can come up with a reason why one spell lets you ignore one main rule, but another magic item doesn't let you ignore another main rule, I'd love to hear.

NB arguments like "you're a jerk" and "It makes sense to me therefore I'm right" aren't good enough. I shouldn't have to tell you this.

Asmodiseus
04-03-2009, 13:23
The same could be said for arguments such as "you lack the objectivity" I consider myself to in fact be very objective with most instances properly weighing each side equally and coming to a conclusion myself, which is why one of the first things I stated in this whole thread is that by RAW you can not force models to move to make room for you to raise.

As to the question about Armybook trumping rulebook, you do make some good points about alot of things that arnt even considered as they are just common sense (ie you 6" move/impassible terrain example) Your argument was well worded and has merit.

Anyway at the end of this 6 page thread, it comes down to play how you want, and if you dont like how someone plays against you, dont play them anymore.

EvC
04-03-2009, 13:38
Totally agreed. And you are certainly more objective than I gave you credit for :)

Neckutter
04-03-2009, 18:50
wow, this thread is still here.
1)armybooks always trump main rulebook. if you have the BRB say something like "ward saves always fail on a roll of a 1", and then you have the DE book say "only a roll of a 6 is a failure", the DE FAQ then sets the precedence that armybook trumps BRB. (pendant of khaleth)
2) the phrase "units may not charge, move, or shoot missle weapons" is implied that this charging, moving, and shooting is voluntary. if IoN raised more models, and displaced a rear unit, it would not be voluntary.

Fellblade
04-03-2009, 20:22
I don't have my VC army book with me at the moment, but does it say you can not summon into a unit if there isn't room for the models? I know it says you can't summon within 1" of an enemy unit unless the target unit is in combat.

Sifal
04-03-2009, 21:03
invocation doesn't mention anything about 1" of enemy that is only for raise dead. Invocation does not specify about whether there is room for the models etc.

Modaavi
04-03-2009, 21:04
It does not say you cannot raise into a unit if there is no room, which causes this gray area. Both sides seem to have valid points. Personally I play only VC and have never tried to raise into a unit with no room, but I can't say I wouldn't allow someone else to do it against me.

Atrahasis
05-03-2009, 14:22
1)armybooks always trump main rulebook. if you have the BRB say something like "ward saves always fail on a roll of a 1", and then you have the DE book say "only a roll of a 6 is a failure", the DE FAQ then sets the precedence that armybook trumps BRB. (pendant of khaleth)No, it doesn't.

The FAQ changed the rule - it defines an exception, not a precedent.

EvC
06-03-2009, 00:49
Here's an interesting "real-game" example for those of you to mull over whether what is jerky or not.

In the situation, a High Elf player has masterfully outplayed his opponent (No, I'm neither player) and gotten his Prince on Griffon to charge a Skeleton unit in the rear whilst Spearmen engage the front. He's also managed to smash a Lion Chariot into the flank of a Black Knight unit.

The Skeletons just survive, and the Vampire player managed 8 out of 8 successful invocations and raises back the unit until it is 29-strong. The Prince is shifted back until he is in the position in the attachment.

Now, if in the combat phase, if the Lion Chariot breaks from combat, he will just clip the Griffon which has very kindly flapped backwards to make room for the 20 Skeletons to rise from the Earth, and so it will take D6 S5 impacts- and the Black Knights will then get to pursue into the Prince and hit him with their S6 Killing Blow attacks.

...does that really sound fair to anyone?

Fellblade
06-03-2009, 01:44
I always thought a good comprise to the vague/absent rules is VC units could always be raised to their starting unit strength if "pinned" by an engaged enemy unit. Of course, nothing in the book supports this.

Asmodiseus
06-03-2009, 05:25
EvC as the vampire count player I would never dream of argueing that the Black Knights would hit the Griffen. The High Elf player has graciously allowed the VC player to raise back units to preserve the spirit of the army, and in return the VC player should make a mental note of where the Griffen would have been and play it as such.

nosferatu1001
06-03-2009, 07:39
thats the only problem though - witthout a strict rule either way it's down to players graces, and I've been burnt a few times where I allow an opponent leeway in rules and gotten nothing in return.

Tournament wise - I'd suggest confirm it with the TO's at the start of the day, that way you can ply consistently. It means if they say "no raising if engaged to rear" and your VC opponent gets uppity, you can call a judge over confidently. Of course you should also clarify this with your opponent at the start, who will then seek clarity etc etc.

Given it is sucha base mechanic of VC there should be a formal ruling on this - RAW wise VC are out of luck, fluff wise you can (as always with fluff) argue either way, but "spirit" wise VC should be able to do this, possibly, as "spirit" is tenuous as ever.

Asmodiseus
06-03-2009, 07:45
Yeah I agree 100% Nosferatu.

I have been burned as well. I was playing OK last week and I told the ogre player that he can go ahead and get rank bonuses for every 3 ogres instead of every 5, then during the game he refused to allow me to try and dispel one of his gut magic spells on a 7+ that had been cast a previous turn after he was finished with all his magic.

He argued that the rules state I can only attempt to dispel it as a RiP spell in my magic phase not his. I told him I was 99% sure this was in the OK FAQ and that I can indeed attempt to dispel it but he wouldnt budge. I get home and sure enough there it is. But you just got to blow those off ocasionally, and like you said at a tournament confer with the judges about it.

Neckutter
06-03-2009, 10:36
...does that really sound fair to anyone?

it reeks of awesomeness!



I have been burned as well. I was playing OK last week and I told the ogre player that he can go ahead and get rank bonuses for every 3 ogres instead of every 5, then during the game he refused to allow me to try and dispel one of his gut magic spells on a 7+ that had been cast a previous turn after he was finished with all his magic.

He argued that the rules state I can only attempt to dispel it as a RiP spell in my magic phase not his. I told him I was 99% sure this was in the OK FAQ and that I can indeed attempt to dispel it but he wouldnt budge. I get home and sure enough there it is. But you just got to blow those off ocasionally, and like you said at a tournament confer with the judges about it.

#1) you just gave him a rank bonus, when he clearly isnt intended to have rank bonus? that is REALLY generous of you.
#2) ive been burned like that before. happened with charging and wheeling. i said i was sure it was on the second page of the FAQ, and sure it was 2nd page top right hand corner, first paragraph. when i then confronted the player about a week later he just kinda shrugged.

EvC
06-03-2009, 13:32
FAQs are odd things, if you don't have them on you, then people might forget what they say, unfortunately. I've heard people confidently claim they can do cheap tactics or take advantage of botched rules that have been corrected by FAQs have actually been okayed in the same FAQs, but it's hard to say "No, you're wrong" if you don't carry them with you. At the end of the day if people are going to act like asses like the Ogre player, then they'll do it either way, sadly. Heck I think the Ogre book itself says they can be dispelled on a 7+ in future magic phases so that should never have been an issue!

Atrahasis
06-03-2009, 13:35
The Ogre book says that a player can dispel them with power dice in their own magic phase. That's the point.

EvC
06-03-2009, 15:15
Ah, I see. Ironically, this Ogre point just goes to show that army book does not trump rulebook, otherwise the FAQ would have said that what the OK book says stands and overrules the main rulebook and Asmodiseus' opponent would have been right!

Asmodiseus
06-03-2009, 22:31
Yeah EVC convinced me in the other thread that Army book>Rulebook is in fact a myth.

@Neckutter
I personally think it is complete crap that units on 40x40 bases need 5 models to get a rank bonus. If you put 3 characters mounted on 40x40 monster mounts and put them in a unit of infantry they will get a rank bonus, so why shouldnt units of ogres, kroxigors and the like.

But anyway Im playing the same player tomarrow and he will be fielding his dwarves so we'll see how that goes.

XXL
07-03-2009, 01:24
A vampire unit attacked in the rear should not be allowed to raise back more models then the enemie unit killed in the last CC face (the enemie units CC face)... That would be a good rule imo... This way the IoN only moves the rear unit as far back as it was allowed to "move" beacause of killed ranks... What do you think?